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