Tabou Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 and what if, say, you can't actually spare £50 a month? choise between paying for something that may never happen and paying for something i do actually need (ie power, water, food, fuel) i know where my fifty is going. i'm glad for you, that you can afford it. I'm not intending to be deliberately argumentative, but lets assume that person A cant afford £50 for life, income protection etc.... What if Person A has Sky TV? £50 a month? Or Gym Membership. Or is a smoker? I suppose it's a question of what's more important to that person. TV/Gym/Smoking, or protecting themselves and their family.
Webbo Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 I'm not intending to be deliberately argumentative, but lets assume that person A cant afford £50 for life, income protection etc....What if Person A has Sky TV? £50 a month? Or Gym Membership. Or is a smoker? I suppose it's a question of what's more important to that person. TV/Gym/Smoking, or protecting themselves and their family. I don't smoke, go to the gym or have Sky tv and I couldn't afford £50p/m.
Daggers Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 ...I guess my point is made if you really feel the need to fuck with the post rather than reply to it.
Tabou Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 I don't smoke, go to the gym or have Sky tv and I couldn't afford £50p/m. Sell your season ticket then...
Webbo Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 Sell your season teacket then... Sell your season teacket then... No & no. I'm not giving up my teacket for anything.
Tabou Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 No & no. I'm not giving up my teacket for anything. Ok, a Kidney? Child?
stez Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 just so the overdraft police are clear, i've not actually had a season ticket since 1998/99 season because after that i couldn't afford on (along with lots of other stuff i went without) this year is the first time in ages i've had one. it's been a struggle, and i'm not after any sympathy (it's been made clear that me and 'people' like me deserve none, anyway) but it's all working out now, but just because i'm on a better financial footing, it doesn't mean i'm about to condemn those that still are, or those that could be in the future. life isn't fair, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, and neither are the ridiculous bank charges. how is charging someone, who's obviously having money troubles, a large amount of money going to help them get back into the black?
Tabou Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 just so the overdraft police are clear, i've not actually had a season ticket since 1998/99 season because after that i couldn't afford on (along with lots of other stuff i went without) this year is the first time in ages i've had one. it's been a struggle, and i'm not after any sympathy (it's been made clear that me and 'people' like me deserve none, anyway) but it's all working out now, but just because i'm on a better financial footing, it doesn't mean i'm about to condemn those that still are, or those that could be in the future. life isn't fair, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, and neither are the ridiculous bank charges. how is charging someone, who's obviously having money troubles, a large amount of money going to help them get back into the black? I think being paid in cash, and keeping it all in a shoe box under the bed would be for the best. No risk of bankers spending it on Nigerian companies, no Northern Rock-esq bailouts, and most importantly....no income tax. I should probably point out that despite my chosen occupation, the above doesn't constitue sound financial advice.
Edmund Posted 26 November 2009 Author Posted 26 November 2009 I have Critical Illness Insurance and Income Protection for those eventualities. I do this for a living, so have seen both halves of the argument...but small mistake / big mistake scenario. Small mistake - paying £50 a month for cover I may never have to use Big Mistake - Getting Ill / unemployed / Having an accident and having no income. I can see what you're saying though. But getting back on topic...if banks didn't levy fees for using unauthorised overdrafts etc, it would be the end of free banking... What you do with your money is your business but why don't you just pay that £50 into a savings account each month. So say you lose your job you will at least have a little to fall back on and if you were to fall ill you would still have your health insurance. I can understand health insurance but income protection Sounds a bit Americanised to me.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 I can understand health insurance but income protection Sounds a bit Americanised to me. It's great. If you can afford it, of course
Tabou Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 What you do with your money is your business but why don't you just pay that £50 into a savings account each month. So say you lose your job you will at least have a little to fall back on and if you were to fall ill you would still have your health insurance.I can understand health insurance but income protection Sounds a bit Americanised to me. Let's say I pay £50 a month into my savings. After 2 years, I've saved £1200. Hyperthetically, one month's salary. What if I have a car crash, or stroke, or illness/injury or one of 100 other reasons that I cant work, and my employer pays me 4 weeks sick pay. I'm off work for 6 months, and I've got £1200 to last to pay my mortgage and bills, food etc.... I'd rather have the Income Protection policy.
Webbo Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 I've had various people trying to sell me income protection insurance over the years. When you read the details you see it's costs a lot of money for very little protection.
Tabou Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 I've had various people trying to sell me income protection insurance over the years. When you read the details you see it's costs a lot of money for very little protection. Fair point, alot of people miss-sell this protection. But there is a MASSIVE difference between Payment Protection to cover mortgages/loans/bills etc, and actual proper income protection. If you get proper advice, have the different options explained properly, and understand what you are covered for, then it offers alot of protection, for little outlay in comparison. I pay £32 per month for the Income Protection, and it pays out 65% of my gross salary should I be unable to work through accident, sickness or injury. I get shit sick pay at work (4 weeks) and if I had a car crash that kept me off work for 12 months, I'd lose my house, car and everything, were it not for the IP. I can see you point, alot of bad press has gone around about insurance. But it is definately a case of Tar with the same brush... A matter of personal opinion I suppose.
Edmund Posted 26 November 2009 Author Posted 26 November 2009 Let's say I pay £50 a month into my savings. After 2 years, I've saved £1200. Hyperthetically, one month's salary. What if I have a car crash, or stroke, or illness/injury or one of 100 other reasons that I cant work, and my employer pays me 4 weeks sick pay. I'm off work for 6 months, and I've got £1200 to last to pay my mortgage and bills, food etc.... I'd rather have the Income Protection policy. I suppose in that sense it's ideal but in one form another it's just another lottery. Say you do have a problem surely when you return to work you will have higher insurance premiums so in a sense you are just putting money away but in the pockets of the insurers. I know it's more complicated than that but I suppose for piece of mind it's worth it. I've had various people trying to sell me income protection insurance over the years. When you read the details you see it's costs a lot of money for very little protection. This is what I thought. I get put off by the fact that insurance companies never lose out otherwise they wouldn't be in business so unless it's compulsory I tend to stay well clear.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 I get put off by the fact that insurance companies never lose out otherwise they wouldn't be in business so unless it's compulsory I tend to stay well clear. Well it's true that they tend not to lose out, but it's a competitive market so it's not quite money for old rope. Income protection is no different to any other sort of insurance. The insurer assumes risk for you in exchange for a premium - they don't do it for free as they're landing themselves with a potentially massive liability. That's the thing that people often don't grasp - the concept that you pay into something but don't necessarily get something out of it. You are one of thousands of policy holders, some of whom will pay their premiums and receive no benefit other than piece of mind, but others will receive benefits way in excess of what they've paid in. They use actuarial calculations to ensure that the likely liabilities are less than the premiums they receive, and the difference is their profits. I'm still at work. Can you tell?
Edmund Posted 26 November 2009 Author Posted 26 November 2009 Well it's true that they tend not to lose out, but it's a competitive market so it's not quite money for old rope. Income protection is no different to any other sort of insurance. The insurer assumes risk for you in exchange for a premium - they don't do it for free as they're landing themselves with a potentially massive liability. That's the thing that people often don't grasp - the concept that you pay into something but don't necessarily get something out of it. You are one of thousands of policy holders, some of whom will pay their premiums and receive no benefit other than piece of mind, but others will receive benefits way in excess of what they've paid in. They use actuarial calculations to ensure that the likely liabilities are less than the premiums they receive, and the difference is their profits. I'm still at work. Can you tell? That does make sense and I understand what you're saying. Of course I don't expect the insurers to offer a win win situation for it's customers as that would defeat the whole object. I understand that say if you were to benefit from the plan it would far out weigh the premiums similar to writing a car off but like I've said earlier it's another form of gambling. You win some you lose some. I can understand that if you could afford it would be nice for piece of mind but I suppose it depends on each persons circumstances.
Tabou Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 That does make sense and I understand what you're saying. Of course I don't expect the insurers to offer a win win situation for it's customers as that would defeat the whole object.I understand that say if you were to benefit from the plan it would far out weigh the premiums similar to writing a car off but like I've said earlier it's another form of gambling. You win some you lose some. I can understand that if you could afford it would be nice for piece of mind but I suppose it depends on each persons circumstances. People pay £50 a month to insure a car, incase they lose it and want to replace it. I pay my premium so that if I lose my income through accident, illness etc, I'll have a portion of it replaced. Some people pay £20 a month to insure a pet incase it needs treating. I pay £20 a month for Critical Illness cover, so should I have one of the illnesses covered (and there are 154 of them on my policy...) then I could seek specialist private care, or pay off my mortgage etc... I understand what you are saying about cost/affordability and everything, but hear me out. When I sit down with a family, with Husband, wife, and two young kids, she is a stay at home mum or on a low income, and he is a sales rep on £25k, with a £100k mortgage. If he dies, the family would be shafted without his income. He could have life cover to pay off his mortgage in the event if death, and Income Protection should he be unable to work, but it costs him £50 a month, so he's not interested. But he will happily spend £60 on Sky TV, or £30 at the Gym, or £200 on fags a month....makes my blood boil. In a perfect world, everyone would have every cover possible. But obviously we all have things to pay for. I can understand this, but people who write off having any cover at all because 'it's a con' or 'it doesn't pay out' need to read a little more into it. P.s - I'm still at work too Bellend, avoiding doing anything .
Bellend Sebastian Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 I've organised a meal out tomorrow and bought a CD off the internet for my mate to give to his missus for Christmas. So it's not all bad
Daggers Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 People take holidays as if it is compulsory. The tart at work who whines on about her debt on an hourly basis still manages to get away to foreign climes at least twice a year. But of course, it's the bank's fault she went over her overdraft last month.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 My ex's ex (bear with me) was incandescent with rage when they withdrew his overdraft, because, and I quote, "they're taking MY money away from me". It's a gulf of understanding that may never be crossed
filbertway Posted 26 November 2009 Posted 26 November 2009 I wouldnt call being 150 quid over my overdraft a perk Haha, I did not see it that way either, but due to Student Finance being processed so amazingly slowly it happened. Luckily it is all sorted now and I will hopefully never be in that position again
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.