Which of you has disability insurance?

With an annual income of 40,000 EUR, there is about 1,100 EUR in EU pension. 40,000 EUR annual income does not quite correspond to 2,100 EUR net. But you save on one of the two cars, so at least 500 EUR per month. The gap is about 500 EUR per month. Wow. I would say a little less money to save. There are also tax advantages for the other spouse due to joint assessment, so the gap is even smaller. If one had any professional expenses, these also no longer apply.

Aside from the fact that you simply assume an above-average income here and adjust further values arbitrarily, I would be very interested to know where you got the calculation from. How old is the employee in your example, how many pension points does he have, does he receive a full or half disability pension?

The average full disability pensioner in 2014 had around 660 EUR before taxes and only 12% of cases were disabled due to cancer. The majority of almost 44% was due to psychological disorders. Even if you now assume that heart/circulatory and metabolic diseases also lead to a shorter life expectancy and add the special cases not explicitly recorded, these are overall just about as many as from psychological disorders alone (44%).

Otherwise karni is right: There are two things, being right and getting your rights. The occupational disability insurance also only covers the case that you are occupationally disabled but not fully disabled. Yes, anyone with burn-out, if someone should recognize it, is not suddenly cured because instead of working as an office drone, they now work as a warehouse worker. And yes, I know, occupational disability insurance also pays in the case of full disability, but for this case you have the state EU pension.

Occupationally disabled is someone who can no longer perform their profession to (usually) 50%. That is not the same as "fully disabled," but that is the beauty of this insurance – it also pays if you could theoretically still do something else. Conversely: If you are fully disabled, you are automatically also occupationally disabled! This is exactly where the problem with abstract reference arises (even if "burn out" is a particularly bad example). A blinded truck driver can no longer perform his job, but he could very well, for example, take over the telephone order processing of his forwarding company – he is occupationally disabled, but not fully disabled (no disability pension). By the way, you do not have occupational disability insurance instead of the state disability pension, but rather in addition.

I also doubt the high claim amount. I also think living on one income is great (+ joint assessment = tax benefits + possibly other income besides employment + EU pension - minus car costs - minus further job-related expenses, etc.).

Of course, one can live on one income (probably also depends on the amount ), but if, for example, you have financial obligations (buying a house is such an obvious example here), you should better secure this case, if possible (health condition / profession practiced). If you do not want to, that is perfectly fine and your individual risk... but please stop supporting it with some fantasy calculations. As if every dual-income household earned the second income just out of boredom.

And on top of that, yes right: The probability of occurrence is very low. At least that you are permanently occupationally disabled from a young age into old age but do not die. By this logic, you should no longer drive a VW Passat, but always a full-sized SUV or truck/own bus or something similar, because mortality is lower in these vehicles. By this logic, you should never ride a bike again, never be a pedestrian or driver without a helmet, etc.

The individual probability of damage is always low, whether you look at traffic accidents, illnesses, home fires, or natural disasters. But insurance does not protect you from these events, nor does it reduce your personal risk of being affected, but it should only absorb or mitigate the consequences for you.

Your example with the SUV is a bit twisted insofar as the SUV can of course mitigate the consequences of a traffic accident but does not necessarily do so. The equivalent would be insurance that plays 6 out of 49 when damage occurs and hopefully draws your insurance number.

You cannot "insure" against every eventuality, and I think very few would want to live such a life in fear anyway. But if I can definitely insure a comparatively high risk of damage for a fraction of the cost of an SUV, then I take this opportunity. If you prefer to invest in an "everyday full-face helmet" or go subway surfing instead because it is "statistically" so safe – fine.

Who says that I invest 75 euros per month for 40 years?

Your assumptions are, as so often, purely theoretical without any practical relevance

Moreover, the comparison with stocks is flawed – they are not insurance. You still haven’t understood that any insurance policy is just a simple bet? No profit distribution planned from the policyholder’s side...

You didn’t provide any numbers. I simply took some that are usually rather at the lower end. If you tell me how much it is and how much you get back, then I can also tell you which six-figure sum you’re giving away.

Apart from the fact that you simply assume an above-average income here and fiddle with further values pulled out of thin air, I’m really curious where you got the calculation from. How old is the employee in your example, how many pension points does he have, does he get a full or half reduced earning capacity pension?

40,000 EUR gross is an average income in Germany.

The average full reduced earning capacity pensioner had around 660 euros before taxes in 2014, and only 12% of cases were due to cancer. The majority, just under 44%, was due to psychological disorders. Even if you now assume that heart/circulatory and metabolic diseases also lead to a short life expectancy and add the not explicitly recorded special cases, that is overall about as many as caused by psychological disorders alone (44%).

So in 44% of cases, occupational disability and reduced earning capacity coincide anyway.

Of course, one can live on that income (probably also depends on the amount ), but anyone who, for example, has financial obligations (buying a house is such an obvious example here) should rather insure against this case, if possible (health condition/profession). If you don’t want that, that’s totally fine and your individual risk... but please stop backing it up with any fantasy calculations. As if every two-income household only earns the second income out of boredom.

Nope, the second income is, of course, meant to save for retirement in the mid-40s.
And you can sell a house again. If it’s not in too bad an area and the construction quality is right, then also for a good price. If I were blind or similar, then, for example, I couldn’t ride a bike/car anymore and would rather look for something inner-city with public transport on the doorstep (like every 5 minutes or so). Also, I probably couldn’t take care of the garden anymore. So why keep the house at all? Even if it would be possible with one income.

You can’t insure against every eventuality, and I think very few want to live a life of fear anyway. But if I can definitely insure a comparatively high risk of damage for a fraction of the cost of an SUV, then I take that option. If you’d rather invest in an "everyday full-face helmet" or go subway surfing because that’s “statistically” so safe – fine.

The best protection against occupational disability is probably a healthy lifestyle. If the occupational disability comes from individual circumstances, then those are probably not insurable anyway.

What kind of nonsense are you spouting again - you can't tell me anything, you don't know my contract - how do you want to calculate anything there? 75 euros lower limit? There are supposed to be people who still have contracts that offer a bit more - these people are usually older than you. But you don't think that far in your little world.

Again: I am not giving anything away because a BU is not an investment with profit intentions.

And the very last thing is your last statement that EIB healthy lifestyle replaces a BU - one really wonders what kind of person you are in real life.

You only come here anyway to spout your crazy theories. You won't help anyone here, you don't want help either...

Pure troll

40,000 EUR gross is an average income in Germany.

That is not correct. The average gross salary in this country is about 32,000 euros (equivalent to one earning point).

In 44% of cases, BU and EU coincide anyway.

You still haven’t understood the system. EU = BU, but BU is not equal to EU. So you can sit at home blind and be BU, but at the same time receive no EU pension because you are just BU.

No, the second income is, of course, intended to be saved for the pension by mid-40s.
And a house can be sold again. If it’s not in too bad an area and the building quality is right, then for a good price as well. If I were blind or similar, then I wouldn’t be able to ride a bike/car anymore, for example, and would rather look for something inner-city with public transport right outside (like every 5 minutes or so). Also, I probably wouldn’t be able to take care of the garden anymore. So why even keep the house? Even if it would be possible on one income.

If you don’t feel like seriously discussing, then save your breath...

The best protection against occupational disability is probably a healthy lifestyle. If BU results from individual conditions, then these probably aren’t insurable anyway.

Fruit and vegetables against burnout? Or bike tours against cancer? Weight training against multiple sclerosis? Of course, if you wait until the 2nd slipped disc to take out insurance, it probably won’t work. But that really shouldn’t surprise anyone, right?

Most diseases have a strong connection to nutrition, exercise, and general health. Little/no sugar and plenty of fruit/vegetables significantly reduce the risk of cancer, heart/circulatory diseases, and other illnesses. Add some HIIT or strength training, but definitely not long/extreme endurance training. And that's what it was about, right? Reducing risk.

The average full-time salary is about 40,000. The comment regarding retirement in the mid-40s and selling a house in case of BU was completely serious. Whether it has to be in the mid-40s can be debated.

Just ignore his thoughtless statements - he only wants one thing anyway