But to your question: you could think of it as receiving the cash value plus the death benefit in this sense if that helps with the understanding (this is how life insurance marketing department describe it). Regardless, you’ll get the higher amount (the death benefit) less any outstanding policy loans and surrender charges left on the policy. I hope this helps.

As to your other concerns, some insurance companies *do* buy gold. For example, Northwestern Mutual buys gold to hold in its investment portfolio. If you thought hyperinflation was on its way, Northwestern Mutual could insure your risks better than you could as an individual. After all, if you could fully self-insure, you would be an insurance company.

Finally, I do not know whether you would "need" your death benefit or not later on in life. I would also need to know more about the details of your policy before I could really comment on what your paid up additions will do (there are several options for dividends), whether you could receive your cash value prior to death, and what your beneficiaries would be paid. If you don't know how your insurance policy works, and it sounds like you have some questions about how your death benefit and cash value works (which is understandable), then you are in absolutely no position to decide whether you will or will not need that insurance. At this point, your best bet is to speak with an insurance professional.

Ok, now my two questions. First, if my cash value is accumilating and it causes my death benefit to increase, when I die ( assuming before age 100 which is end of my policy) do I only receive my FACE VALUE of my policy or the higher NET Death value due to cash accumulations.

Second question: do my PAID UP ADDITIONS actually pay out and cause my FACE VALUE number to increase AND will that be paid out upon my death IF before age 100 ( end of policy)

Last question, as my cash value increases on the term of the whole life ……….IF I live to age 100, is that the only time I would receive my cash value since it should equal my DEATH BENEFIT? Both are so high and above the FACE VALUE of my poiicy. It appears to me this is the ONLY time I would recieve a greater death beneift. IT APPEARS ANY DEATH during the policy, The insurance company keeps the cash value, which may be greater than the FACE VALUE. Is this true? Yes or NO.

Thank you

There is too much smoke screen about the correct TYPE. As for singles or couples with no dependants, I do not know why anyone would mess with cash value insurance policies when there are so many great mutual funds available in various vehicles. I stand my ground. The number one most important factor in buying insurance is to get the amount needed to cover all your financial needs. Period!!

If you want to waste your money investing in a cash value policy, go for it. But your insurance needs are much more important so PLEASE do not combine both. They are two totally different goals and should be handled in different manners.

I care only to help educate those in need of insurance enough that they do not get sold a policy that could ruin their lives..

You seem to be very passionate about your views. That's fine. However, I think your comments are somewhat misleading. Here are two examples (although your recent comments are littered with half-truths):

Folks, this is the same thing as getting term at a more expensive 2nd term of time once the initial period ends.

Not true. As the difference between the cash value and the death benefit decreases, the cost for the insurance also decreases. This is not at all the same as buying term insurance at a higher rate on an annual renewable basis. In fact, with a permanent policy your insurance cost decreases while the cash reserve increases. As I have said and written many times, the cash value represent a cash reserve which is a cash advance on the death benefit. It's not a demand-deposit account, but it has advantages that demand-deposit accounts cannot offer. If you don't like those terms, you do not buy the policy.

Now, if you want your savings for say, collage costs, you either borrow it and pay interest (some savings!) or you must cash in your policy to get the cash free and clear.

That's right. They have to "suffer" with a zero percent net rate policy loan, or worse, a policy loan rate which is less than the interest earned in the policy and not pay taxes on the money they receive. Most people find this more attractive than paying 15 percent capital gains or ordinary income tax rates.

With that said, I think it's wrong to say that permanent insurance is right for everyone and likewise it's wrong to say it is wrong for everyone. Of course, you're welcomed to your opinion but I would again suggest you take a gander at some of my other posts since all of this has been addressed previously.

Thanks,
David

It does not matter the investment skill or ability of a person.or if a person can or cannot develop a good savings habit if they are seriously underinsured. The vast majority of people who are sold whole life policies cannot afford to buy what they really need to replace the loss of an income due to death of a breadwinner. You speak of goals. The NUMBER 1 goal is be properly protected and in this case it is with insurance. Then and only then should a person work at the secondary goal of saving. Only a small minority of people can afford the protection they need with whole life insurance. It is just too expensive. Folks, PROTECT your loved ones first, then worry about the rest of your future. Without proper protection there will be NO FUTURE!

In your response to "misleading statement #5" you state that "When the cash value accumulates in a policy, it builds up against the value of the death benefit effectively replacing it". You also state that this is why the premium remains level. Folks, this is the same thing as getting term at a more expensive 2nd term of time once the initial period ends. Every time your cash value goes up, the actual insurance part goes down in a whole life policy. Eventually, if you do not die and you do hold on to your whole life policy past, say 20 years (most term insurances are 20 yr level premium/face value policies), a large part of what you are paying for is not insurance but for the small amount of insurance left and your so called savings. Now, if you want your savings for say, collage costs, you either borrow it and pay interest (some savings!) or you must cash in your policy to get the cash free and clear. This 2nd way leaves you without insurance. This is how most people get their savings as most cannot afford to pay the high policy cost (most are by then retired and on fixed incomes) plus the interest on the "loan". Does this really sound like a good deal??? At the later years of paying for whole life you are paying the company to hold their savings (it is theirs, not yours).because the savings has replaced the insurance as the author here has himself stated!!