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.
"Technically, this doesn't seem like a scam, but I don't think the system is beneficial.  They use a lot of half-truths to convince you that their product is right for you. Some of the arguments presented and my thoughts. Don't buy term and invest the rest because you can't predict how much you'll earn from the ""rest""   Also Don't invest in a 401k because you can't predict how much you'll earn They are correct that you won't know exactly how much you'll have due to stock market, but that doesn't mean the stock market is a bad place to put your money.  Investing in a 401k is risky because of the harsh 401k withdrawal rules  Yes, 401ks have withdrawal rules (can't typically start before 59.5, must start by 70.5) but those rules don't hamper my investing style in any way.    Most Term Life Insurance policies don't pay out  They are correct again, but their conclusions are wrong. Yes, most people don't die while you have a term insurance policy which is why Term life insurance is relatively cheap.   But they aren't arguing you don't need insurance, just that you need their insurance which is ""better"" You need the Guaranteed growth they offer  The chart used to illustrate their guaranteed growth includes non-guaranteed dividends.   They invest $10,000 per year for 36 years and end up with $1,000,000.   That's a 5% return!  I use 10% for my estimate of stock market performance, but let's say it's only 8%.   The same $10,000 per year results in over $2 Million dollars.  Using 10.5% (average return of the S&P 500 over it's lifetime) the result is a staggering $3.7 MILLION.   So if I'm looking at $3.7M vs. $1M, It costs me $2.7 Million dollars to give me the same coverage as my term life policy. That's one expensive Term Life Insurance policy. My personal favorite: Blindly following the advice of Wall Street and financial “gurus” such as Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman got you where you are. Are you happy with the state of your finances? Do you still believe their fairytale, “Buy Term (insurance) and Invest the Difference”?  Yes, I sure do believe that fairytale and I'm prospering quite well thank you. :) While I don't think this is a scam, it's outrageously expensive and not a good financial choice." "Buy term and invest the difference is certainly the standard recommendation, and for good reason. When you start looking at some sample numbers the ""buy term and invest the difference"" strategy starts to look very good. Here are the rates I found (27 yr old in Texas with good health, non-smoker, etc): $200k term life: $21/month $200k whole life: $177/month If you were to invest the difference in a retirement account for 40 years, assuming a 7% rate of return (many retirement planning estimates use 10%) you would have $411,859 at the end of that period. (If you use 10% that figure jumps to over $994k.) Needless to say, $400k in a retirement account is better than a $200k death benefit. Especially since you can't get the death benefit AND the cash value. Certainly one big difficulty is making sure you invest that difference. The best way to handle that is to set up a direct deposit that goes straight from your paycheck to the retirement account before it even touches your bank account. The next best thing would be an automatic transfer from your bank account. You may wonder 'What if I can no longer afford to invest that money?' First off, take a second and third look at your finances before you start eating into that. But if financial crisis comes and you truly can't afford to fund your own life insurance / retirement account then perhaps it will be a good thing you're not locked into a life insurance policy that forces you to pay those premiums. That extra freedom is another benefit of the ""buy term and invest the difference"" strategy. It is great that you are asking this question now while you are young. Because it is much easier to put this strategy into play now while you are young.  As far as using a cash value policy to help diversify your portfolio: I am no expert in how to allocate long term investments after maxing out my IRA and 401k. (My IRA maxes out at $5k/year, another $5k for my wife's, another $16.5k for my 401k.) Before I maxed that out I would have my house paid for and kid's education saved for. And by then it would make sense to pay a financial adviser to help you manage all those investments. They would be the one to ask about using a cash value policy similar to @lux lux's description.  I believe you should NEVER PUT YOUR MONEY INTO SOMETHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. Cash value policies are complex and I don't fully understand them. I should add that of course my calculations are subject to the standard disclaimer that those investment returns aren't guaranteed. As with any financial decision you must be willing to accept some level of risk and the question is not whether to accept risk, but how much is acceptable. That's why I used 7% in my calculation instead of just 10%. I wanted to demonstrate that you could still beat out whole life if you wanted to reduce your risk and/or if the stock market performs poorly." "Yes, it is indeed hard to get out of poverty. But for the people that do, and sacrifice it all in order to make a better life for their children, would you then tax them so their children have to start over at nothing again?  That sounds like incentivising poverty again, and it doesn't actually fix anything. If unemployment benefits and higher taxes are the problems keeping people in poverty, I don't see how the solution should be to tax more so that we can what... have more benefits programs that incentivise poverty?  It feels good to demonize the ""rich"" because we all can participate. The homeless can blame the $40k income can blame the $250k income can blame the $1M income can blame the %1. Because they have more stuff than we do. But taking that stuff away doesn't increase the standard of living for anyone, it actually makes it more difficult for everyone." Your mother has a problem that is typical for a woman with children.  She is trying to help her children have a good life, by sacrificing to get them to a point where they can live comfortably on their own.  Though she has a difficult situation now, much of the problems come from a very few choices by her and her children, and her situation can be fixed. Let me point out a few of the reasons why she has come to this point: My mother is a single mom... she is turning 50 this summer... she has about $60k in school loans from the college I attended... she has payments of $500/month ($10k) to my sisters college... she lives on her own in a 2 bedroom apartment... Mother's current 'income statement', Income Essentials (total $3131, 71%, too high, goal $2200) Lifestyle (total $150, low, she should have $500-900 to live her life) Financial (total $1350, 31%) Some observations and suggestions: Even though the $1625 rents seems high, your mom might enjoy her apartment and consider part of her rent ($300) a lifestyle choice (spending money for time), and the higher rent may make sense.  But the rent is high for her income. Your mom should be spending more on food, and budget $200/month. Your mom should be saving money for investments and retirement.  She should be putting 10% into savings ($440), plus any IRA/401K pretax savings. Your sister should be paying for her own college.  She should take her own student loans, so that her mother can save for retirement.  And since she only has $10K left, an alternative would be that you could loan her the money, and she could repay you when she graduates (you have money, as you loaned your mother $8K). You should be repaying the $500/month on the $60K student loan your mother took to help you get through college.  You have benefited from the education, and the increased opportunity the college education has given you.  Now is the time to accept responsibility and pay your debts.  You could at least agree to split the expense with her, and were you paying even $300/month (leaving $200 for her), that would still fix her budget. Your mom should get a car that is paid for and reduce her transportation expenses, until the $350/month debt is resolved.  She should resolve to spend no more than $300/month for a car, and with $100/month for insurance be under 10% for her vehicle. Since your mother lives in the US (NJ) she could avoid the $350/month debt payment though BK.  But since there are other solutions she could exercise to resolve her problems, this is probably not needed. You mom could consider sharing her apartment to share expenses.  Paying $1625 for an apartment for one person seems extravagant.  She might enjoy sharing her apartment with a room-mate. That is about it.  Once her children take responsibility for their lives, your mom will have a manageable budget, and less stress in her life. Mother's revised 'income statement', Income Essentials (total $2721, 62%, high, need to reduce by $500) Lifestyle (total $450, 10%, low) Financial (total $990, 23%) While you and your sister have these changes, Summary of changes: Some rent is lifestyle, reduced car loan by $200, sister pays her college $500, you pay your college $300, mom saves 10% of her income.  Once your sister graduates and starts to repay you for your help with her college, you can take over paying the remainder of your loans, saving your mom an additional $200/month. "A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/""aggression"" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite." As someone who has worked for both an insurance carrier and an insurance agent, the reason people buy insurance is two fold: to spread risk out, and to get the benefits (when applicable) of approaching risk as a group. What you are really doing when you buy insurance is you are buying in to a large group of people who are sharing risk.  You put money in that will help people when they take a loss, and in exchange get a promise of having your losses covered.  There is an administrative fee taken by the company that runs the group in order to cover their costs of doing business and their profits that they get for running the group well (or losses they take if they run it poorly.) Some insurances are for profit, some are non-profit; all work on the principle of spreading risk around though and taking risk as a larger group. So let's take a closer look at each of the advantages you get from participating in insurance.  The biggest and most obvious is the protection from catastrophic loss.  Yes, you could self-insure with a group size of one, by saving your money and having no overhead (other than your time and the time value of your money) but that has a cost in itself and also doesn't cover you against risk up front if you aren't already independently wealthy.  A run of bad luck could wipe you out entirely since you don't have a large group to spread the risk around.  The same thing can still happen to insurance companies as well when the group as a whole takes major losses, but it's less likely to occur because there are more rare things that have to go wrong.  You pay an administrative overhead for the group to be run for you, but you have less exposure to your own risks in exchange for a small premium. Another significant but less visible advantage is the benefit of being part of a large group.  Insurance companies represent a large group of people and lots of business, so they can get better rates on dealing with recovering from losses.  They can negotiate for better health care rates or better repair rates or cheaper replacement parts.  This can potentially save more than the administrative overhead and profit that they take off the top, even when compared to self-insuring. There is an element of gambling to it, but there are also very real financial benefits to having predictable costs.  The value of that predictability (and the lesser need for liquid assets) is what makes insurance worth it for many people.  The value of this group benefit does decrease a lot as the value of the insurance coverage (the amount it pays out) decreases.  Insurance for minor losses has a much smaller impact on liquidity and is much easier to self insure.  Cheaper items that have insurance also tend to be high risk items, so the costs tend to be very high relative to the amount of protection.  If you are financially able, it may make more sense to self-insure in these cases, particularly if you tend to be more cautious.  It may make sense for those who are more prone to accidents with their devices to buy insurance, but this selection bias also drives the cost up further.  Generally, the reason to buy insurance on something like a cellphone is because you expect you will break it.  You are going to end up paying for an entire additional phone over time anyway and most such policies stop paying out after the first replacement anyway. The reason why people buy the coverage anyway, even when it really isn't in their best interest is due to two factors: being risk averse, as base64 pointed out, and also being generally bad at dealing with large numbers.  On the risk averse side, they think of how much they are spending on the item (even if it is less compared to large items like cars or houses) and don't want to lose that.  On the bad at dealing with large numbers side, they don't think about the overall cost of the coverage and don't read the fine print as to what they are actually getting coverage for.  (This is the same reason that you always see prices one cent under the dollar.)   People often don't really subconsciously get that they are paying more even if they would be able to eat the loss, so they pay what feels like a small amount to offset a large risk.  The risk of loss is a higher fear than the known small, easy payment that keeps the risk away and the overall value proposition isn't even considered. Generally speaking:   401k good. Whole life bad.  You'll come out ahead if you buy term life (which will cost like 10% of what whole life costs) and invest the other 90% that you would have paid in premium.  The only merit that whole life has is if you're estate planning and and want to leave your kids a ton of money, tax free.   If you're thinking about saving money for yourself, whole life is not a good choice. The catch is in the Premium amount you pay. In a pure term insurance, there is no survival benefit. You get paid only for the event, i.e. when you die during the policy term, the sum assured is paid to your nominee. The money back on the other hand, charges a huge premium, typically 5X more than the pure term, part of it is for the risk cover. The balance is then invested in safe instruments and at the end if you survive you would get that money. Typical calculations would show that if you had yourself invested the difference in premium even in CD's you would get much more money back. The reason this product is available in the market is more of people cannot part with money when they don't get anything back. To these vast majority, it looks like insurance company is taking all their money and doesn't give them back if they survive. Hence to make it seem better to these vast majority, there is money back. Hence people all over the world buy these policy much more than a pure term policy.