you are a scammer if you sell UL and WL

[James]

I wasn't referring to TQ investing, rather assume that the investments are taxed in 35 years at CG rates. Using your figures that would be 1,324,084 less basis of 350,000 CG tax would be around 150,000 for a net amount of 1,174,084. Compared to the WL 750,000 CV less cost of 350,000 balance taxed at ordinary income rates (100,000) for net value of 650,000. If comparing accumulation values WL only wins if one becomes disabled.

Okay, so what investment are you talking about?

 

[bluemarlin08]

Assume equity investments in low cost, low turnover mutual funds, or just quality equity investments in blue chip stocks. As you know, long term investments in equities can easily average 8% over a long period of time.
I am not against permanent insurance, it certainly plays a role in some clients planning, I'm just not in the camp that it is a good accumulation vehicle compared to equities. My experience does tell me that the majority of people underestimate the amount of insurance they need and how long they need. In addition, most people don't continue to "invest the difference" as well as most WL buyers don't keep their policy till death without making loans or lapsing. Hope you have a Happy Martin Luther King Day!

 

[James]

Assume equity investments in low cost, low turnover mutual funds, or just quality equity investments in blue chip stocks. As you know, long term investments in equities can easily average 8% over a long period of time.
I am not against permanent insurance, it certainly plays a role in some clients planning, I'm just not in the camp that it is a good accumulation vehicle compared to equities. My experience does tell me that the majority of people underestimate the amount of insurance they need and how long they need. In addition, most people don't continue to "invest the difference" as well as most WL buyers don't keep their policy till death without making loans or lapsing. Hope you have a Happy Martin Luther King Day!

Correct me if I'm wrong, is this not one of the tax revisions of 2003', if not made pernament it'll revert back in years 2009-2011?

 

[bluemarlin08]

Are you referring to the UTC? Not sure what you asking.

 

[James]

Are you referring to the UTC? Not sure what you asking.

I think I was pretty clear. Plus I wouldn't agree with a 8% likely return on equities.

 

[bluemarlin08]

But that is what you assumed.

 

[James]

But that is what you assumed.

Well!

 

[James]

The taxation of equities that you refered to is IMHO set to sunset in 2009 and, go back to 2001 levels of around 30-35%.

 

[bluemarlin08]

I was under the impression they were referring to capital gains taxation of returning to 20%. Is it your understanding that long term gains on equities will be taxed as ordinary income? If so, does that mean public and private equity ownership? I'm not disputing, just not aware of this.

 

[James]

I was under the impression they were referring to capital gains taxation of returning to 20%. Is it your understanding that long term gains on equities will be taxed as ordinary income? If so, does that mean public and private equity ownership? I'm not disputing, just not aware of this.

Okay, I have to go back and review this, there is an obvious difference between public or private. Yet my thoughts is the low tax of today is going to revert back to 2001 taxation which was no great deal. This is a big fight now in DC between Rep's and Dem's which tax rates are going to stay as the 03' cuts or sunset, just not sure which ones will survive?