wadenkneifer
2014-01-26 22:18:03
- #1
No, I am talking about the loan. With simple example figures:
His salary: 75%
Her salary: 25%
Loan: €100,000
Mutual protection: Reducing the loan to a volume that the other person can bear with their salary or a possible increase. Example: €50,000 for him and €20,000 for her. (as mentioned: fictitious numbers!).
Why not €75k and €25k? (that would be, from my point of view, the "sure-fire variant"): She should be able to handle a maximum (worst-case) 50% residual debt. This case could only occur if, at the time of damage, 0 repayment had been made. Furthermore, there is also protection component 2:
Compensation of income (including virtual income for child-rearing periods for her) of the respective other for at least 1 year, preferably 1.5 years + "bonus" for child-rearing, children's future.
We have just combined these two components into one.
PS: I am not an insurance expert or anything like that, but this seemed to me the most sensible considering probabilities of occurrence, damage scenarios, etc.
His salary: 75%
Her salary: 25%
Loan: €100,000
Mutual protection: Reducing the loan to a volume that the other person can bear with their salary or a possible increase. Example: €50,000 for him and €20,000 for her. (as mentioned: fictitious numbers!).
Why not €75k and €25k? (that would be, from my point of view, the "sure-fire variant"): She should be able to handle a maximum (worst-case) 50% residual debt. This case could only occur if, at the time of damage, 0 repayment had been made. Furthermore, there is also protection component 2:
Compensation of income (including virtual income for child-rearing periods for her) of the respective other for at least 1 year, preferably 1.5 years + "bonus" for child-rearing, children's future.
We have just combined these two components into one.
PS: I am not an insurance expert or anything like that, but this seemed to me the most sensible considering probabilities of occurrence, damage scenarios, etc.