27 Mar Why can’t I protect 100% of my income?
One of the most important types of life insurance is income protection. There’s a great deal of sicknesses and medical events that can keep us from work, and ultimately hinder our ability to fund our day-to-day necessities.
So the question I’d like to address is, why do insurers limit our income protection cover to 75% of pre-disability income – why can’t I protect 100% of my income?
In short, the answer is ‘perverse incentives’. To explain this, consider the following case study:
Alex is a 35 year old lawyer who works for ABC Legal. His income is protected up to the maximum level of 75%. After contracting lung disease, Alex’s doctor tells him he’ll need at least 6 months of recovery and rehabilitation.
Throughout the initial 6 months, Alex’s policy paid him 5 months (due to the waiting period of 30 days) at 75% of his ordinary income. At the end of the 6 months, Alex has a choice:
- Focus all his efforts towards getting back on track, working – and earning his full income again, or
- Continue receiving three quarters of his income from the insurer without working for it.
Therein lies the problem. Most families will struggle to maintain savings of more than 25%, which means that Alex and his family would have dealt with 6 months without any savings after his diagnosis. Having the opportunity to recover within 6 months and earn his full income, Alex will certainly endeavour to achieve this and provide better financial security for his family.
[pullquote4 quotes=”true” align=”center” variation=”silver” textColor=”#000000″]With as much as 80% [of income] replaced in the UK, a professor of occupational medicine claimed he regularly saw well-paid people on income protection who become “extremely passive” and have no incentive to go back to work[/pullquote4]
Had Alex’s insurer paid him 100% of his pre-disability earnings, which choice would he have taken?