Life insurance quandry

Archived From: Finance
  • Page :
  • 1
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
Trying to figure out what to do for life insurance.

I'm 53, wife is 50. †Hoping to retire at 68. †Wife wants me to have 1.75mil coverage until I retire, so 15 years. †I keep telling her that life insurance won't pay if she's the one who puts the bullet in me, but she still wants the life insurance.

The big problem with getting insurance now, besides my age, is a sleep apnea diagnosis from a few years back.

For the whole 1.75mil coverage, the best rate I can qualify for (and yes, I've gone through several services) is 15 year term from United of Omaha, at $380 per month.

I can also get coverage through my work for $660k of coverage for $132 per month (or I can step the face value down at $22 per $110k).

And I have a New York Life universal life policy with a $1mil death benefit that I've paid into for about 15 years @ $200 per month. †Within the past year, I've gotten to the point where the insurance cost has crossed over to a little more than what I'm paying in. †Per the schedule, by 2024, I will have to start paying more than the $200 per month to keep the insurance alive, because I will have depleted the cash in the policy.

I'm thinking along the lines of getting the 1.75mil from United of Omaha, declining the policy through work, and cancelling my New York Life policy.

Opinions?

Chris.†

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Eh, that's still only 30 nights in a lifetime. Sure it's a nice benefit, but 30 nights at half price over a lifetime se... (more)

jameswes (Aug. 29, 2016 @ 4:25p) |

Especially since they could be using a more expensive rate bucket than you'd otherwise book.

stanolshefski (Aug. 29, 2016 @ 4:46p) |

With the money I save by skipping life insurance, I bet I can afford full price for the hotels .

xerty (Aug. 29, 2016 @ 4:57p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

Without knowing more of your financial picture, it's impossible to give good advice.

What are your retirement savings and how close is this to your 'number?'
Do you own a home? What's the home value & outstanding principal balance?
Do you have kids in college or who need your support?
Does your wife work? If so, what's her income? What's your total household income?
Do either of you qualify for a pension or other retirement plan?

That's a large policy for 53 years old. Do you have minor aged children? Do you have a low to negative net worth? Ideally you'd have around 50% or more of your retirement savings at age 53. Nearly $5,000 per year is a lot of money that could be better invested elsewhere. I pay $350 per year for $500,000 in term life. I'm 34. At $29 per month I'm not out a whole lot for some safety for my family. If you don't have young children I question your wife's thought process. Does she love shopping and expensive cars and vacations? If so maybe she should be able to find her own income.

I think I have the same reaction as Boston and bucksandreds - that sounds like an unreasonably large amount of life insurance. So I'll ask about that from the other direction - how did your wife come up with the 1.75mil figure?

We are around your ages, and will let our 10 year term policies lapse in about 6 months. I had $1mil, she had $500k, for a total of about $100/mo. The costs would jump for new coverage now, but our circumstances have changed a lot:
Our youngest is now 20
Our net worth is up drastically, plenty to carry a survivor to retirement.

Actually, I think I'll still have a 1x salary through work, are you sure yours doesn't offer some modest base like that with no cost?

SlimTim said:   I think I have the same reaction as Boston and bucksandreds - that sounds like an unreasonably large amount of life insurance. So I'll ask about that from the other direction - how did your wife come up with the 1.75mil figure?

We are around your ages, and will let our 10 year term policies lapse in about 6 months. I had $1mil, she had $500k, for a total of about $100/mo. The costs would jump for new coverage now, but our circumstances have changed a lot:
Our youngest is now 20
Our net worth is up drastically, plenty to carry a survivor to retirement.

Actually, I think I'll still have a 1x salary through work, are you sure yours doesn't offer some modest base like that with no cost?

† Before you let your term policies lapse, find out if you can convert them to whole, and whether this is something that would be good for your situation.

DTASFAB said:   
SlimTim said:   I think I have the same reaction as Boston and bucksandreds - that sounds like an unreasonably large amount of life insurance. So I'll ask about that from the other direction - how did your wife come up with the 1.75mil figure?

We are around your ages, and will let our 10 year term policies lapse in about 6 months. I had $1mil, she had $500k, for a total of about $100/mo. The costs would jump for new coverage now, but our circumstances have changed a lot:
Our youngest is now 20
Our net worth is up drastically, plenty to carry a survivor to retirement.

Actually, I think I'll still have a 1x salary through work, are you sure yours doesn't offer some modest base like that with no cost?

† Before you let your term policies lapse, find out if you can convert them to whole, and whether this is something that would be good for your situation.


I'm pretty sure whole life isn't something we want, but the agent has been leaving phone messages to talk about that. I should at least find out what they have to offer.

cpaynter said:   I'm 53, wife is 50. †Hoping to retire at 68. †Wife wants me to have 1.75mil coverage until I retire, so 15 years. †I keep telling her that life insurance won't pay if she's the one who puts the bullet in me, but she still wants the life insurance.

<snip>
And I have a New York Life universal life policy with a $1mil death benefit that I've paid into for about 15 years @ $200 per month.†
<snip>

† Granted, we dont know all the details about your finances and financial dependents. At your age, you likely dont have very young kids --- perhaps teenagers or even adult children.

But at the face of it, this would bother me ---- your wife insisting that you carry 1.75 mil. in insurance. Particularly since you already have 1 mil in insurance.

BostonOne said:   Without knowing more of your financial picture, it's impossible to give good advice.

What are your retirement savings and how close is this to your 'number?'
Do you own a home? What's the home value & outstanding principal balance?
Do you have kids in college or who need your support?
Does your wife work? If so, what's her income? What's your total household income?
Do either of you qualify for a pension or other retirement plan?

††
Wow, great questions.

Retirement savings only about $300k, adding about $31k yearly ($18k roth 401k + $13k roth ira). †Our 'number' is around 1.75mil.
We own a home and just remortgaged last month. †Appraised value $395k, mortgage is $180k, 15 year fixed at 2.5%.
No debt other than the mortgage. †Only one car, owned outright.
No kids.
Wife does not and will not work. †She is disabled and she does get SSDI. †Total household income is around $150k.
I do not have any pension coming, wife will have a small ($200/mo) pension from an old job.

My income has been running in the $130k range (depending on bonus), and hoping to increase that. †Conventional wisdom I've heard is that you should have 10x-12x your income in life insurance. †At current rate, that would mean $1.56mil, more if I increase my income. †Also key is that wife is disabled and does not drive. †That means lots of medical bills (and no longer covered by my work insurance), and for the rest of her life (presuming she does not remarry someone willing and capable to drive her around), taking taxis to doctor appointments, shopping, etc., and groceries delivered, etc.

Chris.

fwuser12 said:   
cpaynter said:   I'm 53, wife is 50. †Hoping to retire at 68. †Wife wants me to have 1.75mil coverage until I retire, so 15 years. †I keep telling her that life insurance won't pay if she's the one who puts the bullet in me, but she still wants the life insurance.

<snip>
And I have a New York Life universal life policy with a $1mil death benefit that I've paid into for about 15 years @ $200 per month.†
<snip>

† Granted, we dont know all the details about your finances and financial dependents. At your age, you likely dont have very young kids --- perhaps teenagers or even adult children.

But at the face of it, this would bother me ---- your wife insisting that you carry 1.75 mil. in insurance. Particularly since you already have 1 mil in insurance.


Several of you have balked at that amount, and I realized I neglected to include income. †

But AFAIK, my income isn't stratospheric, it's about $130k. †Isn't conventional wisdom 10x-12x income? †So if I'm bringing home $130k, that's 1.56mil; 1.75mil doesn't seem that out of the park. †Plus, if in a few years I'm bringing in $175k/year then 1.75mil is possibly a little short. †Am I missing something here?

Also, the plan would be, once I got the 1.75mil term in place, to cancel the $1mil in universal life and pocket the small cash value after fees.

Chris.

cpaynter said:   †Several of you have balked at that amount, and I realized I neglected to include income. †

But AFAIK, my income isn't stratospheric, it's about $130k. †Isn't conventional wisdom 10x-12x income? †So if I'm bringing home $130k, that's 1.56mil; 1.75mil doesn't seem that out of the park. †Plus, if in a few years I'm bringing in $175k/year then 1.75mil is possibly a little short. †Am I missing something here?

Also, the plan would be, once I got the 1.75mil term in place, to cancel the $1mil in universal life and pocket the small cash value after fees.

Chris.

† Dont go just by conventional wisdom but based on what specifically your dependents need (financially speaking), if you were to die tomorrow. Do you have a rough estimate what it will take your wife to live on her own if you were to die?

You have about 500k (retirement plus home equity) in other assets that she can use. That along with 1 mil that you currently have in life insurance, assuming a 4% withdrawal rate will get her 60k in annual income. Is that sufficient for her live on --- you need to include cost of housing since I included the home equity in net asset? I am assuming she will be eligible for SS in 12 years. Medical insurance and costs could be high because of her disability.

ETA: If you go with 1.75 mil. your wife will have about 1.85 mil in assets (after paying off the mortgage and including retirement assets), which will yield about 75k in annual income (with fully paid off house).

cpaynter said:   
Wow, great questions.

Retirement savings only about $300k, adding about $31k yearly ($18k roth 401k + $13k roth ira). †Our 'number' is around 1.75mil.
We own a home and just remortgaged last month. †Appraised value $395k, mortgage is $180k, 15 year fixed at 2.5%.
No debt other than the mortgage. †Only one car, owned outright.
No kids.
Wife does not and will not work. †She is disabled and she does get SSDI. †Total household income is around $150k.
I do not have any pension coming, wife will have a small ($200/mo) pension from an old job.

My income has been running in the $130k range (depending on bonus), and hoping to increase that. †Conventional wisdom I've heard is that you should have 10x-12x your income in life insurance. †At current rate, that would mean $1.56mil, more if I increase my income. †Also key is that wife is disabled and does not drive. †That means lots of medical bills (and no longer covered by my work insurance), and for the rest of her life (presuming she does not remarry someone willing and capable to drive her around), taking taxis to doctor appointments, shopping, etc., and groceries delivered, etc.

Chris.

† Are you sure you want to put everything in Roth. There was a recent thread (and several old ones) talking about this. With a relatively small retirement balance (300k) so far, I just dont see how you are better off in Roth instead of a traditional account contribution.

With your current income of 130k and you socking away 31k in retirement (not sure if you do additional non-retirement savings), you have ~100k of pre-tax income. I dont know what you actually spend but based on this, 60k income for your wife (based on your 1 mil. insurance payout) should be adequate. The big unknown is cost for health insurance and extra expenses due to her disability.

so you've got about $500k between home equity and retirement savings, and are in line to save another $500k or so in principle over the next 15 years. †My ballpark says you'll need about a 6-7% average investment return to hit your $1.75M number, which could be a bit aggressive depending on how much you have in bonds earning almost nothing. †Working on increasing your salary and/or reducing your costs will definitely give a bigger margin of safety.

On the subject of insurance, let's say your plan was to retire at 58. †Surely you don't need $1.75M or whatever in year 57 since you'll have earned almost everything you need to retire. †Ideally you'd want term for each year to be decreasing by the amount you would have contributed to net savings during that year of working, but that's too much detail and headache. †You might get something like 3 term policies, 5/10/15 years for $500k each or something. †It doesnt sound like you're going to have estate tax problems what with no kids and the new multi-$M estate thresholds (federal anyway, state could matter), so in general I would think term would be the best choice. †You may have sunk costs in your existing policies that may make them worth keeping, that's worth checking.

Also, you should consider switching to traditional IRAs rather than Roth. †It will save you now on the taxes and with your wife's medical bills, I would expect your tax rate in retirement to be a lot lower than it is now when you're working and earning a good salary. †

xerty said:   so you've got about $500k between home equity and retirement savings, and are in line to save another $500k or so in principle over the next 15 years. †My ballpark says you'll need about a 6-7% average investment return to hit your $1.75M number, which could be a bit aggressive depending on how much you have in bonds earning almost nothing. †Working on increasing your salary and/or reducing your costs will definitely give a bigger margin of safety. †
I'm certainly going to work on that.

xerty said:   On the subject of insurance, let's say your plan was to retire at 58. †Surely you don't need $1.75M or whatever in year 57 since you'll have earned almost everything you need to retire. †Ideally you'd want term for each year to be decreasing by the amount you would have contributed to net savings during that year of working, but that's too much detail and headache. †You might get something like 3 term policies, 5/10/15 years for $500k each or something. †It doesnt sound like you're going to have estate tax problems what with no kids and the new multi-$M estate thresholds (federal anyway, state could matter), so in general I would think term would be the best choice. †You may have sunk costs in your existing policies that may make them worth keeping, that's worth checking.
That's where my head starts to spin, and that's what's made me keep that universal plan. But just looking at the dollars and cents, I'm paying $200 for $1mil of coverage. If I don't change anything else, by the rosiest scenarios, I have until 2024 (about eight years) until the cash value is depleted to the extent that I'll have to start putting more than $200 per month in to maintain the policy. OTOH, I could get 10 years of term (2 years longer than my universal will hold out) for $145 per month. Is there a point to holding on to the universal that I'm not seeing?

xerty said:   Also, you should consider switching to traditional IRAs rather than Roth. †It will save you now on the taxes and with your wife's medical bills, I would expect your tax rate in retirement to be a lot lower than it is now when you're working and earning a good salary. †
I'm still considering whether to do Roth or traditional IRA. And I realize that based on today's tax rates, traditional probably makes more sense. But what if current political winds continue and tax rates rise dramatically. Say, a top rate of 90% (over $1 mil income), 80% (over $500k), 70% (over $250k), 60% (over $100k), 50% (over $50k), 40% (over $25k) and 30% below $25k. Suddenly my current marginal rate of 29% seems like a bargain.

Chris.

SlimTim said:   I think I have the same reaction as Boston and bucksandreds - that sounds like an unreasonably large amount of life insurance. So I'll ask about that from the other direction - how did your wife come up with the 1.75mil figure?

We are around your ages, and will let our 10 year term policies lapse in about 6 months. I had $1mil, she had $500k, for a total of about $100/mo. The costs would jump for new coverage now, but our circumstances have changed a lot:
Our youngest is now 20
Our net worth is up drastically, plenty to carry a survivor to retirement.

Actually, I think I'll still have a 1x salary through work, are you sure yours doesn't offer some modest base like that with no cost?

††
Sort of. †The company offers 2x salary at no cost! †But they'll give me a $44 per month credit toward my benefits plan if I decline coverage. †Any credit overage gets added to my paycheck. †So it's really a shell game. †I'm not complaining; I like the flexibility, versus just "giving" me 1x or 2x life insurance. †Net effect is, it costs me $22 for every $110k of coverage I accept (or saves me $22 for every $110k of coverage I decline, depending on how you look at it.

The big problem I have with taking the work life insurance is that it's only in force as long as I work for the company. †If I leave and go to a different company, that employer may not offer any life insurance, or may only offer 1x salary, or may offer more insurance but at a higher cost. †God forbid, I am laid off and unemployed for some time, then I have no coverage. †And if it's a few years down the road, it may be much more expensive for me to get coverage on my own that that point.

Chris.

cpaynter said:   I'm still considering whether to do Roth or traditional IRA. And I realize that based on today's tax rates, traditional probably makes more sense. But what if current political winds continue and tax rates rise dramatically. Say, a top rate of 90% (over $1 mil income), 80% (over $500k), 70% (over $250k), 60% (over $100k), 50% (over $50k), 40% (over $25k) and 30% below $25k. Suddenly my current marginal rate of 29% seems like a bargain.

Chris.

† While anything is possible in future, what you have put is extremely out of whack --- almost impossible. Keep in mind that even if you have a million dollar stash in your traditional 401k, you will be drawing a small amount, say 40-60k every year. IOW, your dont ever have to pay marginal rates on 1 mil. or perhaps even 100k of income in future. That is unlikely going to be your annual income in retirement based on a 1 mil. 401k.

I've got bad news for you Chris - you're not on track to be rich enough to fall into the "soak the rich" category even if those politicians end up in charge. †Your hypothetical tax rates are really pretty crazy, and if you're willing to entertain things like that, I don't know why you wouldn't also worry about Roth's being taxed again (double taxed). †I think traditional is clear for you and you should think hard about switching. †In your retirement, when your income is lower, your wife's medical expenses may be a large % of income and hence give you large tax deductions, effectively reducing your retirement tax rate even further. †Take the good deal now, rather than paying an expensive tax premium for insurance against some very unlikely tax scenario.

i don't know enough about insurance to say what you should do with your existing policy, except that you should talk to an expert before you give it up. †I would guess that the higher rate vs term is because you have the option to keep it on non-terrible terms even if your health gets worse down the road, but that's just a guess. †We have some resident insurance experts, so maybe one of them will stop by and offer you some advice.

cpaynter said:   
BostonOne said:   Without knowing more of your financial picture, it's impossible to give good advice.

What are your retirement savings and how close is this to your 'number?'
Do you own a home? What's the home value & outstanding principal balance?
Do you have kids in college or who need your support?
Does your wife work? If so, what's her income? What's your total household income?
Do either of you qualify for a pension or other retirement plan?

††
Wow, great questions.

Retirement savings only about $300k, adding about $31k yearly ($18k roth 401k + $13k roth ira). †Our 'number' is around 1.75mil.
We own a home and just remortgaged last month. †Appraised value $395k, mortgage is $180k, 15 year fixed at 2.5%.
No debt other than the mortgage. †Only one car, owned outright.
No kids.
Wife does not and will not work. †She is disabled and she does get SSDI. †Total household income is around $150k.
I do not have any pension coming, wife will have a small ($200/mo) pension from an old job.

My income has been running in the $130k range (depending on bonus), and hoping to increase that. †Conventional wisdom I've heard is that you should have 10x-12x your income in life insurance. †At current rate, that would mean $1.56mil, more if I increase my income. †Also key is that wife is disabled and does not drive. †That means lots of medical bills (and no longer covered by my work insurance), and for the rest of her life (presuming she does not remarry someone willing and capable to drive her around), taking taxis to doctor appointments, shopping, etc., and groceries delivered, etc.

Chris.

† How long have you been making six figures? Why is the retirement savings so low?

I dont know how much insurance companies enforce the max amount insured, but according to quick quote, you age group can get 10x income.

So, you can get a max of $1.5mm. http://www.quickquote.com/blog/term-life-insurance-coverage-maximum/

javaman2003 said:   I dont know how much insurance companies enforce the max amount insured, but according to quick quote, you age group can get 10x income.

So, you can get a max of $1.5mm. http://www.quickquote.com/blog/term-life-insurance-coverage-maximum/

† Per insurer.

sounds like you need to jettison your wife..

It is very very unlikely that you want to purchase a new whole life policy. This is bc permanent insurance is a bad purchase and bc your health has changed which means your rating should not be as good as the policy you have (unless you got additionally suckered into an even worse policy than a typical one). Unfortunately you have not saved enough at this point in time and you also have not properly funded your UL policy so it will likely implode in the future unless you die prematurely or stuff a bunch more cash into it. The cost of insurance within the UL will increase over time as you seem to know. Unfortunately the numbers you are likely looking at are under current assumptions meaning the insurance company can reduce the interest the policy is receiving and/or increase the cost of insurance at their leisure up to their max/min guaranteed. Hopefully you are looking at a recent illustration although i doubt it. More likely you are looking at an illustration you got years ago.

I would be sure to look at a current in force illustration (not looking at numbers that were generated years ago). Just contact the company, they have to send it. This will confirm under current assumptions and should also show you a guaranteed column which will be more expensive/harder to keep in force. Compare this to term you would purchase especially since your permanent policy is very likely just going to wind up as expensive term insurance. If you do purchase term, be sure to keep the current policy until the new term is in force.

You need to be realistic. You arent on track to "your number". There is no free lunch here. You likely need to reduce your expenses/increase income/increase savings per year and/or consider working longer.

The agent you meet will almost definitely try to sell you a new and likely permanent policy. Be careful.

I teach insurance agents how to do policy design, FWIW.

Your likely yield on both your work and Mutual of Omaha policies is negative 100%. That's because you're quite likely to live that entire duration (which is a good thing). Also, if you need 1.7m now, then ten years from now you should need less (you should have more savings and less potential income). So plan to reduce coverage significantly over time.

Your NYL policy may be eligible for a special conversion privilege due to its specific UL type/issue date, allowing you to maintain the health rating you had then when you got it, and convert it to something that might actually pay a death benefit by lasting as long as you do. You'd be able to maintain your cost basis, keep your premiums in a reasonable area, and actually get a death benefit. If you could get a smaller (half million dollar?) new UL with a 40 year guarantee for 400/mo, then throw on your work coverage and a small term. It would cost a bit more, but the permanent insurance would actually pay. Your total increased cost might be an extra 2k per year, but you could have 500k or so at death.
Unless you live another 250 years, this is the way to go if you can.

I'd rule out the work insurance from the get go. Reason is two-fold. First, it's indexed on your age so right now it's $20/$100k of coverage but in 10 years, it could easily double for the same coverage. Compared to term life, this is a bad deal. And it's not even that great a deal right now considering your 1.75 mil coverage for $380/month comes out to be $21.70/$100k but won't ever increase over the 15-yr term. Second, that work policy is tied to your employment. The company could discontinue the program, change the premiums, could go under, or could fire you and then you have none of that coverage. Getting replacement coverage down the line would also be at a much higher premium.

The other thing I'm thinking of is the 15-yr term. You may need 1.75 mil coverage right now but you surely won't in 10 years since you'll have (hopefully) something around $1 mil in retirement savings. So to cut the monthly premium costs a bit, you could consider a 10-yr term life instead of 15-yr term. Or get a ladder. For about the same premium, you may be able to get a $1 mil 10-yr term life policy + $1 mil 15-yr term life policy, giving you more coverage now, and then less for the last 5 years before you retire.

At the moment, if the NYL policy fixed premium all goes to insurance, that's about $20/100k of coverage. Not horrible but soon it'll start eating into the cash value making it effectively more costly than that $20/$100k coverage. Considering that it's about the current cost of term life, I agree that keeping it as is, doesn't sound good. It may be time to get the cash value out - minus penalties and move on but insurer may have some options although in general I'd stay away from the more complex insurance products.

Personally, I'd likely stick to term life insurance ladder. I may stick with paid employer insurance since the first $50k of it is truly free and not taxable like the rest of the paid coverage above $50k/yr but not get any extra coverage. For the NYL policy, I'd likely cash out to avoid bleeding too much of its cash value into coverage growing more and more expensive.

reaglebeagles said:   I have been a life insurance agent/financial advisor for 20 years and while most people can take care of the majority of their life insurance with term coverage, it can still help to have some permanent coverage as many people end up needing coverage longer than their original plan and have to repurchase insurance (when term runs out) at 60-70 years old...


Shame on you if you are out there selling life insurance to 70 year olds.† Absent some kind of key man insurance related to a business or partnership arrangement, or as an estate planning tool for a high net worth individual, there would seldom be a need for the average joe to have any kind of life insurance at all at that age.† Selling insurance to old people so that "the family won't have to worry about burial costs during their time of loss" is just plain taking advantage of people.† They would be better off prepaying their funeral expenses than buying a life insurance policy.

reaglebeagles said:   ($2m or more term or any size permanent policy will also allow you to earn 50% off Hyatt hotels

††
If that were actually true (which I really doubt) could be an excellent deal right there. Someone who travels a decent amount could easily spend $5k/year on hotels - spending $1500-2000/year on $2M of term life to cut that in half would be worth it.†Which makes me doubt it's actually true.

cestmoi123 said:   
reaglebeagles said:   ($2m or more term or any size permanent policy will also allow you to earn 50% off Hyatt hotels
††
If that were actually true (which I really doubt) could be an excellent deal right there. Someone who travels a decent amount could easily spend $5k/year on hotels - spending $1500-2000/year on $2M of term life to cut that in half would be worth it.†Which makes me doubt it's actually true.

††
I found this on it that says:

"As you accumulate Vitality Points, you can purchase hotel nights from any Hyatt hotel worldwide at a 50% discount based on the hotelís lowest published rate. The higher your Vitality Status, the more nights you can buy, up to 30 in a lifetime. Status discounts are as follows: Bronze, 0 nights; Silver, 2 nights; Gold, 4 nights; and Platinum, 8 nights."

So you have to earn the vitality points to get the hotel stays. † And its not easy to get those points as theyre dependent on meeting tracked health goals. † Silver level is 3500 and gold is 7000. ††Not sure if the points system is universal for vitality but another site shows points of 5-15 per workout. † So if you work out daily you'd get about 5500 points and thats a ways short of gold. ††

If you think she's nagging now, just wait 15 years when you've spent $70K on life insurance and you're still alive? Boy is she gonna be livid.

Eh, that's still only 30 nights in a lifetime. Sure it's a nice benefit, but 30 nights at half price over a lifetime seems not *that* amazing.

jameswes said:   Eh, that's still only 30 nights in a lifetime. Sure it's a nice benefit, but 30 nights at half price over a lifetime seems not *that* amazing.
† Especially since they could be using a more expensive rate bucket than you'd otherwise book.

jameswes said:   Eh, that's still only 30 nights in a lifetime. Sure it's a nice benefit, but 30 nights at half price over a lifetime seems not *that* amazing.
† With the money I save by skipping life insurance, I bet I can afford full price for the hotels .†



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017