Income protection insurance is a bit of a con as it only pays if you are earning a regular income, what if you are unemployed, also it pays only up to 75% of your salary regardless how much premium you are paying for.
oasis1frog, if you are usually employed, the cover usually continues for short periods of unemployment. eg If you've had a job, lose it for 2 months, then happen to get very sick during that 2 months, the cover usually kicks in and you start getting an income from the income protection policy.
And yes, of course they have to structure it so that you're not getting more cash from not working than you'd normally get for working
, otherwise the incentive for fraud would be way too high and the product wouldn't be viable. Everybody on $30K would simply buy income protection to cover $100K, then falsify a claim. Similarly, I don't believe these policies cover unemployment, because otherwise there wouldn't be sufficient incentive to find a job and claims would be through the roof. As Centrelink would well know, it's very hard to prove that somebody can or can't find a job.
Sure, claims require substantiation, but they also rely on the people earning $100K having expanded their lifestyle such that they
need $100K to live, and for those people, $75K would be a "subsistence lifestyle". In 99% of cases (including my family), it's a pretty safe bet.
I don't consider it a con at all. (Though I'm skeptical about trauma insurance; have heard it's nigh-on impossible to get a payout.) If my hubby got as ill as I did with a previous employer, our family would be (financially) up s**t creek, and the income protection insurance is well worth the peace of mind it brings.
I know people who've had to claim on their income protection and, whilst they had to substantiate claims (naturally), didn't have undue difficulties getting paid out.