Quote:
Originally Posted by tiger_handheld
registered accounts are for my retirement + my future wife's retirement.
the whole life is to ensure that the kids are taken care of. whole life is never for you...it's for who's left after you. Getting in at a young age is much more cost effective.
i'm also not looking at it from a tax perspective, purely what can i do to make sure the family is taken care of after i'm gone... i'm not planning on leaving millions and millions..hell it wont even be enough to buy a home in vancouver at todays prices.
everyone should have a will ..it's not a wealth preservation tool... it's so your loved ones don't have to deal with probate.
i hate insurance as much as the next guy, but it's a necessary evil.
|
As a family man myself, I understand the need for insurance. But, the difference between whole life policies and term policies is pretty significant. That difference between the two policies can be invested for your kids in other ways, such an RESP. The government gives you a 20% return on RESPs which is way higher than what you would get under your current whole life insurance policies. Or, you can open up non-registered accounts for your kids. If you live for another 20 years, you'll be able to weather any downturns in the market and achieve historical returns on your self-managed investments for your children which are higher than the payouts of your policies above.
After going through the process myself, in my opinion, whole life is a product that serves a small minority of wealthy families. For peons like us, there are other ways to ensure our survivors will be taken care of if we die before we're ready.