Verhovayak Lapja, 1950 (33. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1950 / Verhovay Journal
PAGE 6 Verhovay Journal February 15, 1950 The Unmasking Of “I Can't Afford It”- LET’S PUNCTURE AN OLD, SPURIOUS ARGUMENT, THAT HAS Ä BEEN FLOATING AROUND TOO LONG. — Two men were overheard the other day, discussing television on their way to the office. One was running TV down to the ground; programs were terrible, he claimed, reception bad, it’s bad for the eyes and hard on the nerves and it would take years and years of improvement before he could see any sense m spending good money for a television set. Said the other: “You are so light. I can’t afford a set either.’’ It’s human nature rather to run something down, even though we may like to own it, than to admit that we can’t afford it. ‘Sour grapes’ ir, the * proverbial term for this attitude ^hich serves to hide unreasonable .pride under the pretense of reasoned preference. Pride, however, is not always so cheaply entertained. Sometimes a thing gets so popular that it just 'Can’t be run down with impunity. In that case, the proud person, even though he neither likes the stuff, nor can afford it, will buy it anyhow, just because everybody has it. That’s called ‘keeping up with the ' Joneses.’ Naturally, no one in his ■right mind would admit that he really ‘couldn’t afford the purchase, oh no! 'After all, such a shameful admission ‘Would defeat the purpose of the purchase which is to prove one’s ability ‘to afford what others can buy. 1 In other words, neither those who ’desist from buying because they just, don’t have the money, nor those who spend beyond their means because .they can’t resist a fad, will sincerely admit that they “can’t afford it.” Except when it comes to life insurance. In view of the wide-spread 'reluctance to admit that one can’t' afford something, it is highly peculiar that the most frequently heard objection to a suggested life insurance program is “I can’t afford it,” br, slightly tempered by the pretense Of the temporary nature of financial embarrassment, “I can’t afford it aright now.” ‘ What does it mean. Is it possible 'that people will suddenly act contrary to human nature when they ■are offered life insurance? Surely not. There must be some other explanation. There is one, too. Only •one. •! If people never, or hardly ever, •claim that they “can’t afford it,” 'whao> it is true, then it stands to reason that the argument is used only if it is — not true. It is used merely as what it is: an apparently unanswerable argument. That’s why ‘most people smile when they resort *to the claim “I can’t afford it,” in Tact they smile like the cat that «wallowed the canary, which isn’t the (Way the normal person feels when he can’t afford something. Indeed, one may take it as a pretty general rule (exceptions granted, of course,) that when prospects hum and haw around the subject, using fevery possible argument except the one that they can’t afford it, then chances are that the real reason for their resistance is that actually they ‘can’t afford it. while if that’s the only argument they use, then it is almost certain that they can very Well afforá the program recom’mended. ’ To be sure, on rare occasions one does meet somebody who really can’t ’afford it and says so. This, however, 'Would be true only in the case of a man who is saving 10% to 15% of his income through Life Insurance. And that’s a rare fellow, indeed. Mostly, however, it is the man who puts only 2%, or 3% or, at the most, 5% of his earnings in Life Insurance, who claims “he can”t afford” to buy more. He won’t lace the undeniable fact that his family has dangerously inadequate protection in the event of his death. Nor will he face the fact that his children might, not be able to acquire a college education and he will not be able to attain some measure of security for his old age because of the utter inadequacy of. his life insurance program. He will admit that life insurance is a good thing, he will grant! you that children’s higher education, old age security and many other splendid aims can be successfully financed by Life Insuance, but as far as he is concerned, “I can’t afford it,” is the end. of the issue. True, he may honestly feel, because he has convinced himself, that he could not possibly save another hundred dollars a year . . . But is it really true ? Would he just give up, lie down and starve together with his family if h's income were cut two dollar's per week? Of course not! He would get along somehow, in fact, he did before and lie will do it again! Because it is usually the fellow who says “I can’t afford it,” who goes out the next day and buys a brand hew Cadillac, or a television set, or a new living room set, thereby cutting his income by much more than $2.00 a week and yet, he gets along and chances ate that both he and his wife and the children will be fairly well fed, too. Naturally, we don’t recommend to buy life insurance instead of a car, . to buy more life insurance instead of a television set, and to buy still more life insurance instead of a living room set. Carried to the extreme that would mean for all industry to close down and for the life insurance industry to operate in an economic ' vacuum. That would be insane. The idea is to let first things come first. Surely, bread clothing, shelter and health come before life insurance, for life has to be maintained if there are to be lives to be insured. But next to that in importance in the legitimate place of life insurance. Certainly it must take precedence over luxuries, regardless of how ‘necessary’ some of them may seem to modern man. If an average wage earner just bought a new car, a television set and a living room furniture, chances are! he has three thousand dollars of indebtedness,. If he should die two, three or six months hence, his widow, without adequate life insurance protection, would lose everything, including the down payments, the monthly payments already made and her credit standing! On the other hand, if the same wage earner had purchased life insurance at monthly rates totalling only one quarter of the payments on the purchases listed above, his wife and his children would never see want . . . The thing to do, therefore, is to space purchases, to make them at reasonable prices, and the funds thus released should be saved in life insurance. Because any purchase made by an undersigned man is made at) his wife’s and children’s risk! At any rate, two dollars a week would hardly make an appreciable difference in the standard of living of the average wage earner’s family. The question is, what sort of insurance protection would two dollars a week purchase for the family? By how much could the wage earner increase his insurance estate if he were ,to invest two dollars a week ? That, of course, would depend on his age. The younger he is, the more he can get for the same amount of money. And that’s something to tell the man who claims “I can’t afford it right now.” What he means, of course is, that once he has paid this bill or that, he will be in a better position to buy additional insurance protection. Well, he may, provided he will be alive until then and provided he will be insurable. But even if he will be alive and in insurable health, he won’t be able to buy then what he could buy now. As age advances, rates increase, because the older a person is, the greater a risk the insurer assumes. Two dollars a week invested now will produce insurance protection of a much higher amount than the same amount invested later. The question ea'ch and every man has to decide for himself is simply this: would you rather buy less for more later than buy more for less now? The answer is obvious. Here are a few examples of how much Verhovay Insurance Protection approximately two dollars a week will purchase for a wage earner. ENDOWMENT AT AGE 85 $2 WEEKLY WILL BUY At Age 28 — $5,00« At Age 32 — $4,500 At Age 3« — $4,000 At Age 40 — $3,500 At Age 44 — $3.000 At Age 48 — $2,500 At Age 53 — $2,000 At Age 59 — $1,500 In other words: Approximately Two Dollars a week will buy twice as much insurance protection at age 28 than at the age of 48. Wouldn’t it be foolish to wait until age 48 to buy half as much as could be bought at the age of 28? Of course, a 28 year old man may say: “I can’t afford it right now. At( the age of 48 I will have our home paid in full and then I may be able to buy the $5,000 even though I have to pay twice as much for it.” The answer is “Yes, provided you will be alive and provided, further, you will enjoy insurable health at) that age. And the chances are about even that you won’t be insurable,, even if you are alive. Furthermore, you won’t be insured at all from the age of 28, that is now, until the age of 48. In Other words, your family will have no insurance protection whatever, or very inadequate protection during the period when it is needed most, because the children still are young and there still is a mortgage on the house. The truth is, you can't afford not to buy the $5,000 policy now.” But let’s show another example. TWENTY PAYMENT LIFE $2 WEEKLY WILL BUY At Age 16 — $4,000 At Age 23 — $3,500 At Age 31 — $3,000 At Age 40 — $2,50« At Age 48 — $2,000 At Age 58 — $1,50« And what about an Endowment plan providing security for the years in which the earnings of the average wage earner decline? ENDOWMENT AT AGE 60 82 WEEKLY WILL BUY At Age 17 At Age 21 At Age 24 At Age 28 At Age 32 At Age 36 At Age 40 At Age 44 At Age 49 $5,006. $4,500 $4,000 $3,50« $3,000 $2,500 $2,00« $1,500 $1,000 The usual claim is that a man just married and starting a family can’t afford to invest as much in life insurance as a middle aged man. That may be true, but the fact is that he doesn’t need to invest as much, because a program started at an early age will require only half as much in payments as one started at middle age. These are the facts, and all of them are facts, confronting the highly dubious argument “I can”t afford it.” And we submit that if a man can afford to get married and to maintain a family, then he must be able to afford two dollars for additional insurance protection. If he really can’t afford it, then he probably couldn’t afford to get married either. And if he did get married anyhow, then why start this "can’t afford” business when it comes to living up to the responsibility he has assumed? And so, at last, the argument “I can’t afford it” stands before us unmasked. This argument travels under an alias. Its true name is “I don’t want it!” And what does “1 don’t want it” mean. This is what it means: “I want a nice home. I want good food. I want entertainment, fun, good time. I want a car, I want to ride wherever I please, and when I am at home, I want to enjoy a television program. I want everything that’s pleasant. I want everything that makes life enjoyable. And as long as there is anything I want that I can’t afford, I don’t want and I won’t want to protect my family, nor do I want to provide for the future of my children, nor do I want to acquire security • for my old age. If I die, it’s their tough luck. They’ll get along.” Well, that’s an attitude, too. No wonder that the men and women who have that attitude refuse insurance on the ground that they “can’t afford it” rather thqn frankly admit that they just don’t want it. Who could admit that and keep on living with himself ? Distribution of Assets According to Funds Senior O. Trust F. Junior O. TOTAL R.E. H.O. Bldg. Less Reserve .............. S 132,994.91 R. E. Hung, Hall ................................ 15,555.20 Mtge. Loan A/C .......................... 138,965.84 Branch R. E.............................................. 11,216.40 Loans and Liens ........................................... 494,721.48 Bond A/C ................................................:...... 8,725,154.69 Stock A/C .................................................... 34,798.44 Cash A/C .............................................'.......... 100,384.47 Savings A/C ................................................ 65,601.39 Machinery Less Reserve .......................... 22,975.34 TOTAL ....................................... -$9,742,368.16 JOHN SZALAXCZY, National Treasurer 88,207.64 3,182.16 13,253.97 10,373.29 909,660.64 47,349.52 132,994.9! 15,555.2# 138,965.84 11,216.40 505,094.77 9,723,022.97 34,798.44 150,916.15 78,855.36 22,975.34 $104,643.77 $967,383.45 $10,814,395.38 JOHN SABO, National Auditor
