<prompt> Human: Started listening to Dave Ramsey a little and hes very outspoken against whole life policies.My parents took out a whole life on me when I was going through college. 50k for 219 a year. Im looking to take it over myself now that Im mostly financially stable. I have a wife, house, and a daughter meant to take it over sooner, but kept forgetting about it.My current plan was to expand my term insurance through work dirt cheap to basically cover everything until my student loans are gone at least, but also continue paying the whole life insurance as sort of a bonus for my daughter when I pass in another 40 to 50 years. I know the cash value growth is garbage and Im wondering if 50k is going to do much in 50 years, but it only costs 18.25 per month to keep it alive, which is very manageable.Am I better off just putting the extra money into current debt and then a retirement account? The cash value growth is really low, but in the end Im only paying a little over 7k over the next 32 years and then beneficiaries get 50k when I pass. I used an online calculator to see how just a flat 20month would grow in a Roth account and it only came to about 22k after inflation, and that was assuming 8 growth.Is there something that Im overlooking or not understanding as to why Dave Ramsey and this sub hates whole life policies? From what Ive read on my brief search is they are terrible investments, but Im not really doing it for my own investment, but my daughters.Thanks in advance.Edit: Thanks everyone for the input. It seems like the best option is to drop the whole life, bump up my term at work for a couple dollars a week, get a term plan outside of work just in case, and if I really want to leave something for my daughter to invest the money, either the cash out value or the monthly payment into a roth account and letting it grow well past when I die and before she needs it.  <response>: Whole life is total garbage. Without even going into the specific details about why, here is the general principal that guarantees that it -must- be total garbage: Insurance -only- makes sense for a consumer if a small percentage of people ever actually use it. Homeowners insurance is a great example of this. I can cover a 250,000 asset for something like 50 bucks a month. This is because most peoples houses never burn down or otherwise get destroyed, so the company can cover those big expenses by taking 50 bucks a month from tens or hundreds of thousands of people and still be able to pay employees and for their buildings and utilities and still make a profit on top of that. Guess how much homeowners insurance would cost if the average home burned down once every 5 years? Well it would cost the price of an average home divided by 5 markup. That would be prohibitively expensive, so the product would not exist. Term life works the same way--you hope to never have to use it, and because that is likely the case, its very cheap. Whole life is DESIGNED as an insurance product that everyone who buys it will eventually use. That means that. by definition, just to keep the lights on and pay employees, let alone make a profit, Whole Life MUST, on average, take much more money from EVERY customer than they pay out, because they literally plan to pay out to every customer instead of just a tiny percentage of customers. It is the absolute worst type of insurance product out there. 