Kids vs. No Kids at the Wedding – How to Decide

One of the oldest arguments when it comes to wedding planning has always be whether or not you should invite children. Some people do, and some people do not. It is always hard to determine whether or not you feel that you should have children at your wedding, but there are several things that you should keep in mind.

First of all, one of the most important deciding factors is whether or not you and your fiancé like to be around children. If both of you are very family oriented, and hope to start a family of your own soon, and if you adore children and like to spend time with them, then there is really no question about it, no matter how formal your wedding is. If you feel that lacking the joy children might bring would be detrimental to your wedding day, you should include children on your RSVPs and make sure that parents know they are invited.

The other side of the coin is if you and your fiancé really don’t enjoy being around children. Perhaps you don’t want to start a family any time soon, and you really don’t enjoy having children around you – especially other people’s children. If this is the case, remember that the day is your day and you should feel comfortable. If having an abundance of children around wouldn’t make you feel comfortable, than perhaps you shouldn’t include them in your special day.

A big factor that you need to keep in mind, however, when planning your wedding, is how your families relate to children and what kind of families you have. If you have all grown siblings who don’t have children, and if your cousins are all old and most of them aren’t married, then it isn’t going to be a problem to not invite kids to the wedding. However, if your families are large and there are lots of children in your family, you might have a problem. If you have siblings that have young children, asking them to not bring their children might hurt their feelings, and they might be upset that you feel their children are too loud or not well behaved enough to attend your wedding.

You have to keep in mind that even though it is your wedding, you are going to be responsible for the way that people feel at it. If you are going to make a rule that says that children can’t come, it might be a good idea to talk to the people who have children personally and to tell them that it really has nothing to do with their children or with them. However, no matter how nicely you explain it, don’t be surprised if a lot of people won’t come to the wedding if they can’t bring their kids. You might have a smaller guest list if you make this decision, but it is something that might be important enough to you to make that decision.

One last thing to keep in mind is whether or not your wedding and your reception are going to be very formal affairs. It has traditionally been the case that most of the time when children aren’t invited to a wedding, it is because the couple feels that the wedding and the reception should be a very lavish, very formal adult affair. Make sure that your wedding fits into this assumption if you don’t want to have children there. If you have a very informal wedding and reception, most people won’t understand if you choose not to have children present.

Top 5 Ways To Generate Low Cost Website Traffic

There is one hard and fast rule in generating income for your website: A steady flow of website traffic. If no one goes to your site, it hardly bares a chance of generating an income. Many sites have tried and failed in doing so, and these results to the sites demise. It takes money to maintain an income generating site; it also takes money to make money.

BUT, it doesn’t take a whole caboodle of cash to generate website traffic for your site.

Ever wonder how does big hit sites drive traffic top their site? Most of them are spending tons of money to drive the traffic to their sites, investing in many advertising campaigns and different forms of marketing schemes and gimmickries. This is all worthwhile because, well, they are what they are now, high earning, big hitting websites.

You don’t have to do this if you don’t really have their resources. There are many ways to generate low cost website traffic without having to spend what you don’t have or can’t afford. Many people have banked on high cost methods and have ended up losing their shirt over it.

Here I present to you the Top five ways to generate low cost website traffic that could help your site a whole lot. Even if you only get a small percentage of successful visitors in to client ratio it still works especially if you get a high number of website traffic.

Exchange Links

This is a sure and proven method. Rarely would you see a site where there is no link to another site. Many webmasters are willing to exchange links with one another so that they could produce more public awareness about their sites. You’ll soon see and feel the sudden upsurge of the traffic coming in to your site from other sites.

A major prerequisite in exchanging links with other sites is having the same niche or content as the other site. They should share a common subject so that there is continuity in the providing of service and information to what interests your target traffic.

Exchanging links also boosts your chances of getting a high ranking in search engine results. It is common knowledge that search engines ranks high sites that have inbound and outbound theme-related links. With a good ranking position in the search engines, you will generate more traffic in your website without the high costs.

Traffic Exchange

This is like exchanging links but on a different higher level. This may cost a bit more than exchanging or trading links but could be made cheaper because you get to earn credits. You can use those credits when viewing others traffic, while you earn credits when someone views yours.

Traffic exchange services are the viewing of another’s site or page. This is done vice versa where a site can use your sites contents and so can you to his or her site. You both benefit from each others efforts to generate traffic. The other sites visitors can go to your pages and know more about your site as well as theirs. Once again the public awareness of your sites existence is boosted.

Write and Submit Articles

There are many e-zines and online encyclopedias in the internet which provides free space for articles to be submitted. If you want to save costs, you can do the articles yourself. There are many freelance writers who are willing to write for you for a small fee, but to save money, it is wise to do those articles yourself.

Write articles that are themed along with the niche of your site. Write something that you have expertise on so that when they read it, they can feel your knowledge about the subject and will be eager to go to your site. Write articles that produce tips and guidelines to the subject or niche your site has.

Include a resource box at the end of your article that can link them to your site. Write a little about yourself and your site. If you provide a light, information-laden and interesting article, they will go to your site for more.

Make a Newsletter.

This may sound like hard work because of all the articles you may need to use to build a newsletter but on the contrary, this is not so. There are many writers and sites that are willing to provide free articles as long as they can get their name in on your newsletter. This will also provide free advertising for them as well.

As your newsletter gets pass around, you can widen your public awareness and build an opt-in list that can regularly visit your site.

Join Online Communities and Forums

This only requires your time and nothing else. You can share your knowledge and expertise with many online communities as well as your website. You can get free advertising when you go to forums that have the same subject or niche with your site.

Share your two cents and let them see how knowledgeable you are with the subject. As you build your reputation, you also build the reputation of your site, making it a reputable and honest business that could be frequented and trusted by many people.

Why home insurance companies are sensitive to lapses in the insurance?

When I shop for a home insurance I am always asked if my home is currently insured or if there are lapses in my insurance policy. Some companies outright refuse to give me a quote when I tell them that I haven’t had home insurance in the last 3-4 months. I am wondering why this is important for them?! They just referred to their company policy and did not give me any meaningful reasoning. Thank you for your answer.

Insurance companies are wary of lapses in any kind of insurance policies. In your case it just happened to be home insurance.

The single most feared factor in the insurance business is not hurricanes, not bush-fires, not wars, not meteor strikes but what's known as 'moral hazard'. Moral hazard is, in simple terms, lack of inhibition in preferring a claim under less than above-the-board circumstances.

For example, if your camera is insured for home use only, you cannot make a claim if the insured camera suffers damage during a jungle safari. Most of us, being honest persons, would not even want to claim under such circs. However, since, as a rule it takes all kinds to make this world, there exist individuals who would make a claim as if the damage occurred at home. Such individuals are considered to be 'moral hazards'.

Coming back to your original question, insurance companies know from empirical evidence that the incidence of moral hazard is greater – much greater – in those cases where there's a break iin coverage. It's likely that the insured is trying to renew the policy after a loss has occurred.

You need to provide evidence to the insurance company that you did not intend to let the policy lapse. That it lapsed, is a fortuitous happenning (please note the wording – underwriters love such language) and not a deliberate omission. 'I do not want to be penalised for something over which I had no control' is the line you need to take. You could strike lucky with this line.

Because it drastically increases the risk, that whatever the "something" is that you're insuring for, has already happened, and you're going to try to commit insurance fraud with them by trying to claim it happened right after you bought the policy.

If they would issue you a policy, how long before you would let it lapse???

It costs time and money to issue a policy. It you are not going to keep it up to date, it is a waste of time for them to consider you as a potential customer.

Who pays for the home insurance when you let your house?

I ask this question on behalf of my friend, who lives in Malaysia. He wants to know what the law in England will be in this case.

My friend is gonna let his house to another, so that he can have some income. A question arises: They need to buy a home insurance in case there is an accident like fire. Apparently in Malaysia, a homeowner doesn't have to buy insurance for his house.

So in this case, who should pay for the home insurance, the homeowner or the tenant? I mean, the rental period is 2 years, and the insurance, if paid, will cover for 2 years only.

whoever owns the house


Buildings cover is still the responsibility of the home owner however insurers usualy excluded window cover if they know the property is let. Contents insurance would obviously lie with the person renting the property.

Genreally as in all insurance the owner of the item to be insured is responsible for insurance.

To ask, your friend must be a money grabbing git.

If burned down, and insurance builds a new house, is it the tennants house now, if they paid insurance?

I hope your friend isnt malaysian, bought a house over here (when so many English people cant afford housing) and now hopes to milk our economy.

I'll burn it down myself.

Remember, tennants arnet cattle….theyre the customer, they, PAY your friend. He's the "employee" in this arrangement.

Cheeky Git!

The homeowner in England. he will take out insurance as he needs it.

The building insurance is his , he should let the company know the property is rented or it will invalidate any claim.

If letting through an agent make it part of the contract of tenancy that the tenant also insure as contents policy's also cover landlords fixtures and fittings, such as bath, kitchen units decoration etc .

usually the property insurance is the responsibility of the landlord – it is his property after-all and if it burnt to the ground he would want to be able to replace it.

the contents insurance is the responsibility of the tennant, its their property, and if it gets destroyed in the fire they will want to replace it.

Normally the home owner would buy homeowners insurance to protect his interest in the property. At the same time a tentant could buy renters insurance to protect his personal property. Usually if there is mortgage on the property the mortgagee will require the homeowner to carry sufficient insurance. If there is no mortgage, the homeowner does not have to have insurance, it's just a good idea because a house is a sizable investment and these things do catch fire occasionally and sometimes a car will run into it.

Who has responsibility for this expense should be stated in the tenancy agreement.

He would have to pay for the insurance his-self.

the owner if something would happen how would he get his money from the house always have insurance on anything of yours, he can always add it to there payment

If I were the owner I would get insurance (to include liability insurance) myself. It is my property and I would not trust someone else to insure it properly. I would consider the cost of the insurance as part of the cost of doing business (and adjust the rent accordingly)

the home owner

If the owner lets someone else pay for the house insurance, it's a big mistake – because if the other person doesn't pay on time, the policy gets cancelled, and the house burns down, the owner is SOL.

The owner needs to include the cost of insurance in the rent he is charging, and pay for it himself.

It is not a legal requirement in the UK for a home owner to have buildings insurance (bricks and mortar) or contents however it my be required as part of a mortgage agreement.

As both parties (the owner and the tennat) have insurable interest each party can take out insurance on the same property.

In this scenario it would be worth the owner of the house to take out buildings insurance and the tenants taking out contents. If the owner of the house is leaving any of their possessions in the house it may be worth extending it to cover limited contents. I would certainly advise your friend to take out the scenario above. If there is any more confusion phone up your local brokerage or phone around explain the situation to the adviser then go from there. Hope this is of help.

Whats the difference between home insurance and rental insurance?

for my rental property? Is it a good idea to switch home insurance to rental insurance when a tenant is living in my rental property just in case if they smashed some holes on the wall, or some damages on the property?


You need to change or they will not pay if you have a claim.

Holes are not covered, neither is most tenant damage.

But, you still need fire damage, weather, etc etc.

Also, if you are going to allow animals check your policy, they are not likely to cover your property if you allow any dangereous animals.

I am a landlord AND an insurance sales rep so I have experience from both sides of the situation.

You couldn't get "renters" insurance because that is the coverage a tenant gets to cover their belongings, it don't cover the home.

Now you don't need "full" home owners insurance. It is a waste of money on your part. If your personal home burns down you need coverage on the home and your contents inside. If your rental home burns down, what do you need covered? Just the home, not the contents. As a landlord you are NOT responsible for the tenants contents. You need to reduce your home owners policy to only structure coverage. It will cost much less and is best when it comes to responsibility, if something should happen.

You should contact a company like State Farm(they pay claims really well), Farm Bureau, American Family(although I personally don't care for them and how they pay claims). They are going to have more knowledge on what you are looking for.

I know of homeowner’s insurance which covers the owner’s property, and renter’s (not rental) insurance, which covers the renter’s property. You should inquire with your home insurer to make sure your current policy is the best one for your needs.

If you have a mortgage, you are required to maintain homeowner’s insurance. Renter’s insurance is something your tenant chooses to get on their own.

OWNERS get home insurance to cover the structure and the property incase of fire and things like that.

TENANTS get renters insurance to cover their personal belongings.

If a tenant puts a hole in the wall THEY have to pay for fixing it – that would have nothing to do with any insurance anyway.

Insurance on your rental property is much reduced from the coverage on your home. There is much more risk with a stranger living in it. It costs the same but covers less. It covers accidents but a hole in the wall is seldom covered. Fire would be covered.

No. You are the property owner and need home owners insurance. If your tenants cause damage you will be covered under that. Your tenants need rental insurance to cover their own belongings in case of a fire.

Insurance on your personal residence covers the house and contents. A fire policy on rental property only covers the structure, but not the tenant causing damages. That's what the security deposit covers.

home owners protects you the home owner.from loss..just insure it as a rental. If the renters want to protect their stuff they need renters insurance.

You definitely need to switch your coverage if the home is not owner-occupied.

Does home insurance cover when you rent out the house and the tenant causes a house fire?

Does home insurance cover when I rent out the house and the tenant causes a house fire (assuming the house completely burnt down)? If not, do I need to buy landlord's insurance or ask the tenant to buy renter's insurance? Thanks

Homeowners policies vary; you'll want to read the fine print on yours to see if it does or doesn't cover such circumstances.

You would have to consult with your agent on that… If it's a basic policy, probably not.

Renter's insurance covers the renters things, not yours, as far as I know.

Ask your agent… they would know better and be better aquainted with the laws where you live.

I believe you have to list the property as an investment w/ the insurance co. which will increase your premium due to the higher risk, but the 1st response is a good 1….

Read the fine print…or do what I do and tell them to find what you want to see in the paperwork and let them find it for you.

I like to delegate tedious tasks 😉



home, swishhome,

you need to get a special policy from the insurance company, and you should also tell your bank if you still have a mortgage, that you are renting the place. YOur homeonwer's will not cover the damage.

John is wrong.

"Homeowners insurance" covers the owners dwelling [house/garage] and contents [owners personal property on the premises]. "Owner" [landlord if he is the owner] takes out this policy and is responsible for the premiums. If building is leased or rented out, it does NOT cover tenants personal property, such as furniture, electronics, etc, or even tools borrowed from a neighbor.

"Renters insurance" covers the tenants personal property only. They take out this policy and pay the premiums.

Home owners policies cover every circumstance EXCEPT what is listed in writing, or "exemptions". These are normally: floods [obtain this through FEMA], home businesses losses [such as a fire in a residential garage being used as auto repair business], or anything else that is listed in writing. If your house up in Alaska gets stampeded by purple elephants, and it is NOT listed as an exclusion, it WILL be covered.

How can I know if my old home insurance is not commiting fraud since it cancelled me after a claim?

When I removed the carpet of my home, I noticed that the concrete was all cracked and the walls were breaking apart, I put a claim with my home insurance and they said won't be responsible for the repairs. A few days later they sent me a letter to notify they won't insurance any more my house. Now I have no money to repair it and I don't know if the insurance effective now won't do the same and I am paying for no cover at all. – try this one. Got my home insurance from them. As I know they provide such a service.

Here's the scoop:

1. You uncovered damage that wasn't caused by an insurable event, so it's proper that they denied the claim.

2. You also uncovered damage that may be structural. Consequently, with this new information, the insurance company chose to cancel your policy.

Without knowing the insurance regulations of your state, it's hard to say whether or not this was within the regulations. In my state, for homeowners, the insurance company can cancel a policy "for any reason" or "for no stated reason".

Gotta get a lawyer!

lawyer up

Can I ever get home insurance again if a previous one has been cancelled?

About 1 yr ago I cancelled my DD for my home insurance to cut costs. My bank then said as I never told them directly they have refused my insurance policy and that I would find it difficult to get another policy. I am now looking to start another home insurance policy but they all ask the question if I have been refused before? What does this mean? As it is obviously important to have it as you never know what will happen.

Shouldn't be a problem; if your claims history is clean and credit decent, you should be able to find a company that will start a policy for you. You haven't really been refused, you were cancelled for non-payment.

Don't know what the deal is with your bank, you'd think they'd be happy to add an insurer and happier still to escrow the payment.

I am sure if you told new insurance company why it was cancelled then they would disregard why it was refused…..Refusal because of building defects or bad security is what insurance companies are looking out for not for petty spite reasons put forward by a bank..

How does cancelling direct deposit cut costs? You still have to pay the insurance premium. Does this mean they cancelled you for non-payment? Any mortagage lender requires home owners insurance. It is mandatory, not optional, if you don't pay it they will assign an insurance provider for you at a significantly higher rate and add it to your mortgage payments. Something in your story does not add up.

Getting homeowners insurance if you have had a policy cancelled, although difficult, is not impossible to get. Be honest with the agent when you speak with them and they should try to help you out.

Good luck!

No, you'll still be able to get a policy.

A few extra steps will need to be taken, but it shouldn't be an issue. The Insurance company will need to send a Rep to take photos of the home and any unrepaired damage will need to be fixed before the policy is issued, or they might just exclude that damage.

Did you have a mortgage this past year? If you did, the bank might have Force Placed an Insurance policy on your home and been charging you through the Escrow Company.

What do you know about home insurance involving a fire?

My friend had a fire in her home, during the final days of the sale. The insurance company is trying to prove fraud on her part, which there is none, and she has not paid out since Sept. 28, 2006. She is going for a polygraph test later next month, in the mean time she has no where to live, they have given her $2500 living allowance and refuse to give her more at this time. Any suggestions on what she can or should do?

If she truly did nothing to cause the fire, then it may be time for her to hire an attorney.

5 months to settle a claim is not really an unreasonable time, especially if there are suspicious circumstances. And if they do prove that she started the fire, that $2500 they gave her under the "additional living expense" portion of her homeowners policy, they are going to want it back. If she started the fire, they legally don't have to pay her a dime, including living expenses.

Insurance companies have every right to investigate any claim, auto, homeowners, injury claims, anything they suspect might be fraud. Insurance fraud is a multi-billion dollar industry in this country.

I found this article on home insurance which offers information as well as advice and tips etc, hope it helps.

insurance companies are not going to shell out the thousands of dollars for an investigation if there is nothing to investigate. they have a reason to believe there is something suspicious going on. your friend is going to have to wait it out. she can hire an attorney if she wants to pay for one, unfortunatley theres not a lot they can do until the company decides they are satisfied with the investigation findings.

What insurance company is it?

What sale? She has not paid out WHAT?

The insurance company doesn't determine if arson is involved – the fire marshall does that. If the report comes back arson – and if she's a suspect – then by law they have to fully investigate the claim before they can pay, because she is NOT going to get any money for that house if she burned it down.

HOWEVER. If there is a MORTGAGE on the house, the mortgagee can still be paid, up to their interest in the value of the house, or the amount on the policy.

Did the fire dept come up with a cause for the fire? If it was "suspicious", the company can have their SIU investigate. How long has she been waiting for payment? Obviously, the house didn't sell. I would call the State Insurance Dept if she feels the investigation is taking too long – & she did nothing wrong.