X-Message-Number: 29783 From: "John de Rivaz" <> References: <> Subject: Re: Insurance again Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:08:36 +0100 I thought Rudi Hoffman's recent post to the list was most amusing and laughed in approval as I read it. I also agree with Flavonoid's post concerning insurance plus investment for young people. Although the stock markets have been weak since the turn of the millennium, the best time to buy stocks is when no one else wants them. Any young person buying stocks on a regular basis over the first decade or two of this century is likely to have done very well indeed by the time he reaches retirement. The encouragement of a rising market at the end of the last century made lots of people jump in at the top. Buying stocks on a falling or level market requires a lot more determination. Having said all of that, there is a problem with the fact that the legal profession is making security of owning anything weaker and weaker. Someone can be a litigation victim at any time, (a disease on the macro scale) or a victim of accident or a victim of a serious viral or bacterial disease (ie of the nano scale). In the latter case their money can run out for treatment and care, and it may be possible for the Receiver to revoke cryonics arrangements to get at the money. At present life insurance where the beneficiary is the owner of the policy escapes all of this. Therefore even if you have bought term insurance and also done well on the stock markets, when the term expires apparently the only way to avoid this risk is to buy more life insurance rather than invest your money. However I was told recently by a financial advisor who offers life insurance plans (without leading or prompting) that this situation may not last indefinitely. I have written before that governments have legislated against the freedom of ownership because the state's taxpayers cannot afford to go on paying for terminal care or compensating people who could otherwise take someone else's money by litigation. Legislators must be aware that families are buying life policies simply to keep money to pass down the generations rather than paying death taxes, or for terminal care or legal claims. In the UK a gains tax on life policies was introduced within the last decade, and "the power of the life companies" was not mobilised against it. The UK government also raided UK pension policies by changing the tax laws, to the extent that the managers were unable to pay out the sums they thought policy owners would get on retirement. It would not be unreasonable to suppose that they will legislate in future that the seven year rule no longer applies (policies don't count for death tax if the buyer dies after seven years have elapsed since the last premium was paid). They could also legislate that policies are available to receivers if the buyer becomes insolvent through litigation or need for care. Another related piece of legislation is that UK pension policies can be transferred by the courts in cases where the owner is being sued for choosing the wrong spouse (ie divorce). Previously pensions were not included in such litigation. There is, of course a sound reason for this - the taxpayers don't want people with failed marriages claiming benefits. In theory the "fine" is partly intended to make people chose their partners with care, but unfortunately this seems no more effective than motoring fines in making people drive and park considerately and carefully. If someone were to spend the value of cryonics on a cruise, then there is no way that the state, lawyers or anyone else can get the money back. But the very nature of cryonics means that this irrecoverable expenditure does not take place until a time when the owner is very vulnerable. Unless there is some legal mechanism whereby the expenditure is as "safe" as buying a service like a cruise there will always be an element of financial risk. In conclusion, I would still favour investment over insurance - nothing is perfectly safe, and the rewards for both the individual and cryonics service provider are very much higher. -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz: http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy, Nomad .. and more Content-Type: text/html; [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29783