Is whole life or term life the better way to go? I am a healthy 35-year-old woman.
I would recommend a blend of the two if income would support both a young person has time on their side. At this time in life they can build a multi million dollar investment in 15- 20 years with the maximum allowable funding per year. This is really good stuff. | 10.13.15 @ 01:40
Term is the ONLY way to go ! Buy term and invest the difference ( whole life cost minus the term life cost ). Philosophy has served me well. Retired at 60 ! | 10.13.15 @ 04:51
Absolutely agree with Monte, life insurance is to cover loved ones and assets at death, not create wealth for living. | 10.13.15 @ 19:42
Yes! No! Maybe! There isn't a right answer, just yours. Whole life is the best choice if you want coverage for your lifetime, but a poor choice if you just want coverage for a while. Depending on your needs and budget, if you want insurance to be there for your lifetime at the best price possible, whole life is a solid choice to make. | 03.03.16 @ 07:53
Beware of agents that push Term Life most of them are not educated in finances and are making quick sells that are easy because they are cheap . Ask them will you ever get your money back without passing the answer is no. How ever some policies have a living benefits rider which is a good policy depending on where you are in life if you are 35 and you own very little as most 35 year olds then term with living benefits would work for you . But if you didn't get the rider why would you pay 50$ a month for something that has know benefit to you and you will never see any cash back ever . Just to give you some info don't waste your money working with people that is after the fast buck they work with captive companies and are here today and you never see them after the sale .
| 03.05.16 @ 00:49
Monte is completely correct. John is not it is that simple. Whole life insurance only benefits the insurance agent. | 08.05.16 @ 13:57