The numbers you are quoting has to be the bare minimum for just some of the red tape. Not realistic.
I also do not think that when someone passes away, all you need to do is dispose of the body with $420. Seriously?
The government crematorium costs $100 (adult), and the government cemetery charges $320 for ash scattering in a particular designated area. Do you know of any other minimum expenses?
...But let's suppose you want to double that figure to $840. Are you proposing that people buy an
insurance policy to prevent a charity from possibly paying
$840 to dispose of their body? How about just keeping $1,000 in a Singapore Savings Bond? (For example.)
According to some estimates, cremation without a funeral in Singapore costs around S$1,000 to S$1,300.
Yes, if you spend more than minimum required.
Typical spending is not minimum spending.
As for funerals, depending on the religion, or lack of, they can cost anywhere between S$4,000 to S$6,500.
Yes, and there's no obligation whatsoever to have a funeral.
But OK, let's suppose you want a funeral.(*) It will take you only 7 months earning $2,000 per month to accumulate enough CPF savings to pay for a $5,000 funeral. This is just not a problem requiring life insurance!
(*) You expect other people to hold a funeral where you attend, if you attend, in a casket or urn.
what has a person economic years and whether he got income or not determine his/her need for DPS? I don’t get why “if you are working you need DPS, if you not working you don’t need DPS” part of the argument
The DPS is term life insurance. It pays a death benefit to survivors, a cash benefit. It cannot bring you back.
Aside from the $420+ cost to dispose of your body (legally), once you die you are not a burden on anyone. You no longer need food, clothing, or medical care. Your expenses drop to zero. If you weren't generating any income then nothing changes in that respect either.
If, on the other hand, you
are generating an income and using it to support survivors (dependents) then when you die that income stream is lost. If your survivors basic living standards would be seriously negatively impacted — if they wouldn't be able to pay for food, clothing, shelter, or other basic necessities — then a life insurance payout can help. But if they can get by then life insurance isn't needed, and by definition they
had to get by when you're retired because you're not helping to support them financially with your income from work. (And when you die they presumably inherit whatever wealth you had accumulated and not spent.)
Isn't this pretty basic? Or is life insurance too confusing? I'm seeing some very strange arguments here trying to justify the need for life insurance even when no need exists.
it’s possible that person is not working/retired but children are still studying hence “dependent“ hence DPS is still useful
No. There's no income loss when the retired person dies, but there is a reduction in household living expenses due to one less mouth to feed. Financially that's
helpful, not harmful.
for me is very easy to define. do you have dependents or not full stop (Regardless what age you are, if you are working and have income or not etc etc)
If you have no income from work then whatever family members you have are not your financial dependents. They can't be: you have no income.
