![]() |
Originally Posted by Wolf424
(Post 3724580)
Yes.
Delta is still providing 50K of life insurance (the max I believe it can offer as a benefit without imputed income). The GVUL policy is separate through MetLife. On the 27th, we will receive instructions on how to sign up for GVUL as well as the level of coverage you are requesting. **If you fail to complete that second step of the GVUL, you WILL NOT lose your full 1.1M coverage.** It will just revert back to the current plan and you’ll have to wait until next open enrollment. |
Originally Posted by Puddytatt
(Post 3724760)
Thanks. .
|
Seems like the biggest downside of the investment option is that there’s a 2.5% load up front. But wouldn’t your tax free withdrawls (up to the cost basis) more than make up for this and make it better than a taxable brokerage account? Full disclosure, I’m not great at Math.
worded another way, wouldn’t this be better than investing the same chunk of money in a normal taxable brokerage account? |
Originally Posted by shadyatbest
(Post 3725918)
Seems like the biggest downside of the investment option is that there’s a 2.5% load up front. But wouldn’t your tax free withdrawls (up to the cost basis) more than make up for this and make it better than a taxable brokerage account? Full disclosure, I’m not great at Math.
worded another way, wouldn’t this be better than investing the same chunk of money in a normal taxable brokerage account? |
Originally Posted by JamesBond
(Post 3726114)
Don't view it as an all or nothing vehicle. Diversify, diversify, diversify. Some in taxable, some in tax sheltered even of those earn a little less is a good thing. The hard part of the question to answer is how much the government is going to steal from you when you are "retired".
No thanks. I’m happy to take the imputed income savings and invest elsewhere. |
Originally Posted by bugman61
(Post 3726185)
Diversification is great, as long as the vehicles/investments you are in are actually good. The GVUL at best provides minimal tax savings, likely actually provides a tax penalty, and charges a 2.5% fee.
No thanks. I’m happy to take the imputed income savings and invest elsewhere. If you are investing purely for stable yield, the baseline of 4% interest with a 1.5% guarantee falls well below the 5% money market rates currently available. Even with the income tax savings, you end up ahead on the outside. DYODD, YMMV |
I had MetLife run an illustration for me. If I put in $250 a month into the freedom 2050 fund (age 65 retirement) and no more, meaning let premiums pull from principal, at an assumed 7%ROI (after load) I'd have roughly $250K at retirement in the cash balance side. Right now it's about $9800/yr from 65-69 to keep the full GVUL value, remember is 2500x top CA rate. The rate goes up exponentially post 69. My $125/PP would fund me to 72-75 depending on market return and where pay rates go for the full face value. Now, if I took the difference in just imputed income, at age 38, and invested what I "don't pay" for imputed it came out to keeping full coverage until maybe 70 in this freedom fund (really just a 7% ROI post load). Used it just to try and find a middle ground on investment returns. There would still be an ability to pull a good chunk of change tax free at retirement and let the policy fail. Is it worth it? Ehh, haven't decided. Everyone's financial picture is different but the option exists where it COULD make sense. Someone retiring in the next few years would need roughly $50k to keep insurance from 65-70:years old. The $250k/-50y trend to $10k retiree life is separate so that still exists. Just depends on who or what depends on you at retirement vs what you assets already protect vs liability/legacy.
|
Originally Posted by higney85
(Post 3726514)
I had MetLife run an illustration for me. If I put in $250 a month into the freedom 2050 fund (age 65 retirement) and no more, meaning let premiums pull from principal, at an assumed 7%ROI (after load) I'd have roughly $250K at retirement in the cash balance side. Right now it's about $9800/yr from 65-69 to keep the full GVUL value, remember is 2500x top CA rate. The rate goes up exponentially post 69. My $125/PP would fund me to 72-75 depending on market return and where pay rates go for the full face value. Now, if I took the difference in just imputed income, at age 38, and invested what I "don't pay" for imputed it came out to keeping full coverage until maybe 70 in this freedom fund (really just a 7% ROI post load). Used it just to try and find a middle ground on investment returns. There would still be an ability to pull a good chunk of change tax free at retirement and let the policy fail. Is it worth it? Ehh, haven't decided. Everyone's financial picture is different but the option exists where it COULD make sense. Someone retiring in the next few years would need roughly $50k to keep insurance from 65-70:years old. The $250k/-50y trend to $10k retiree life is separate so that still exists. Just depends on who or what depends on you at retirement vs what you assets already protect vs liability/legacy.
|
If post retirement life insurance is the objective, look into a 20 year level term policy. $1.2 million will be roughly $300/mo for a healthy 55 yo pilot. That keeps you covered until 75 AND provides additional coverage on top of the GVUL years.
|
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 3726555)
If post retirement life insurance is the objective, look into a 20 year level term policy. $1.2 million will be roughly $300/mo for a healthy 55 yo pilot. That keeps you covered until 75 AND provides additional coverage on top of the GVUL years.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:09 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands