• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Soldiers squander disability payouts

Pusser said:
Careful who you challenge to do the math.  The government has access to plenty of actuarial accountants who can produce charts and graphs that will make your head spin and prove without a doubt that the earth is flat.

To be blunt, I think that's where the perception fails to meet expectations, i.e., because the math isn't "out there."

And there's one critical factor that's not been put out for consideration.

It is possible that the VAC calculations do ensure that the average lump-sum payout will match the old pension payments based on the one piece of data they aren't sharing - the average life span of recipients after starting to receive their pensions.

And, if anything, that makes it an even colder approach. They may have crunched their numbers based on the old pension benefits, averaging them over how long recipients have collected them in the past, and then calculated the lump-sums that would have achieved the same result - if, and this is the big "IF", the recipient knew before-hand how long they were expected (by the VAC program) to live.

The problem is that no-one plans to die young. And common-sense and optimism lead us to plan for an average life span.

So their cold, sterile math may have a grounding in collected data - but it conflicts with human expectations of life span and lifestyle, and human perceptions of fair entitlements.

So, where's the real math behind the numbers?
 
Bin Rat and 57C,

Great replies, thank you for digging up the info.

I wasn't trying to be a Devil's Advocate, I was genuinely curious about what happened with the small percentage of people who got better.

Cheers.
 
A point that really pops out to me is the statements from  VAC that the member can place their "one time payment" into a financial plan or investment, is a total crock.  That is telling the Vet to gamble on how the Markets are going to move.  I remember my original briefings when we were offered the SRSP when it first came out and how we could all have $1 Million after so many years if we invested so many dollars a month into our plan.  Well, after thirty years, and the numerous downturns in the Markets, my SRSP is nowhere near $1 Million.  These statements from VAC are OVERLY OPTOMISTIC PROBABILITIES, not reality.
 
Investing the proceeds to generate an income is a valid idea, but expectations should be tempered. While it's certainly overly optimistic to assume that everyone turn an investment into significant growth, reality isn't as bleak as you paint it either. Every one of the 'numerous downturns' of the last 30 years has been followed by a period of massive growth.  See: http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia19802000.html

The problem is that it is foolish to A) think that you can just give someone money and expect them to make proper investments without extensive training or help, and that B) you can presume that those investments will pay off reliably in any sort of short-term time-frame.

Should investment be a tool that is used in the monetary compensation? Of course. Should all of the risk and responsibility be passed down to the end personnel? Probably not.



 
Evening All...

And thank you.. with my dealings with VAC I've done a whole wack of searching on the internet for answers
So, if I know for sure an answer then I'll will say something, otherwise I read and read...

Just some other links if you interested in reading, I have these ones as well

Veterans Review and Appeal Boards Act - http://tinyurl.com/26bctfb

War Veterans Allowance Act - http://tinyurl.com/2427omp

Department of Veterans Affairs Act - http://tinyurl.com/23cxr37

Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act - http://tinyurl.com/2ecmngt

Pension Act - as posted before

There are a few other Acts that the Minister of Veterans Affair is responsible for which are listed here as with the one's I posted
http://tinyurl.com/2896o9s

 
ArmyVern said:
The NVC is certainly better in a few areas than its predecessor. In the areas of OSIS coverage, oversight and access to services - the NVA is by far the superior way to go. It actually corrected a problem in an area that was sorely lacking in the not so recent past. The NVA covering that, access to retraining (if possible) etc etc are ALL superior and are improvements brought with the NVA.

How do we fix that? Once again, we bring back the monthly pension in lieu of the lump-sum payment; this ensures that those pers have the required monthly income - for life - to make payments on those necessities that allow them to repair/replace as required and to LIVE in a respectful and dignified manner. Geez, all problems solved; how easy was that and where is my consulting fee??

So, in essence, in the majority of cases it comes down to: "do I purchase what I need now when I am freshly injured and require it to be able to carry on with life?" or "do I invest my 1/4 mil and live miserably without any semblance of mobility and dignity until I can collect from that invested money years down the road when I really need that income NOW?" Not a nice position to be in is it? Well, that IS the reality that today's vets are facing.

Do that, and VAC doesn't need to worry anymore about "soldiers squandering their disability payouts" and we owe our veterans and our injured that at the very least.

So despite the improvements in the way of mental health and occupational therapy/availability, counselling with the NVA, there has been a distinct reversion and shortfall in the NVAs ability to provide an adequate means that ENSURES (that is their mandate) a financially stable future that will ensure a dignified and acceptable QoL for those with lifelong physical, emotional and mental injuries. This, of course, is just my humble opinion.

Thats your humble opinion vern........and from those of us who are wounded. well said. I have issues articulating myself/ keeping focused for peroids of time. thank you very much for that








[edit to fix "quote"]
 
If you go and listen to the podcast I linked earlier you will hear Mr Blackburn talk about how the new systems helps veterans. At one point he implies that the DVA gives 75% salaries until we get retrained and working again. (I thought this was a SISIP benefit correct me if I am wrong) and he say the NVC will help because under the old system veterans waited around month to month for their cheques like we were lazy and on welfare.

he pissed me off

It sounds like he has no idea that the system is broken.
 
Invest the lump sum I keep hearing that and I think it is a crock. I know nothing about the stock market or investing other than put it in an RSP and you will have more later. If I was any good at numbers I would have become an accountant or a finical adviser, but I'm not good at numbers so I joined the army. That way I could have a job were as long as I showed up at the right time wearing the right cloths in the right place and did as I was told I would get  paid for as long as I wanted to do that job. Now with having a whole bunch of WWII Vets and Korea Vets for Uncles and a Father I knew there was a chance that I might get hurt, but if I got hurt the government would look after me. Now that isn't true any more. Their attitude is " Here some money that's all you get don't ask for more cause you aren't getting any. Hope you invest it wisely. " This coming from people that can't balance their own books which is kinda ironic. Well I can tell you one thing that I do know about investing  the money they gave me that I'm suppose to "live on"  They tax the living hell out of it  :rage:
 
In Canada, capital gains are actually taxed at half of your marginal tax rate. You get to keep comparatively more money from an investment than you do from a regular paycheck.

I realize that it doesn't help with the frustration of the situation at all, but I figure it is a prudent point to make.
 
Mr Blackburn does mention the Charter as being 'living', therefore, open to suggestion for change.
Many good points are shared by members on this forum, and on many others.

With all due respect.
Minister

Creation of a split pension, enabling both a monthly indemnity and award, where a payout figure after calculation has been awarded.
This could be based on the recipients age and marital status.
Included could be a number of tables where those recipients could choose the monetary
pension scenario that best suits his/her financial needs. (after careful consideration)
ie.... Table A, Table B, Table C, etc
This would be much more financially responsible on the part of VA to the recipients.


The extension of the 25yr claim limitation to 100yrs or simply eliminated. (You know why)


Provision for 'professional lesion' status where warranted
example, NBC use/missuse (Agent Orange)
PTSD, repetetive injuries, etc


More stringent documentation of injuries by supervisors in all service components.
This could include the implementation of a "Member Injury Record Book" similar
to the "Paratrooper Jump Record Book" duly signed and x ref to other pertinent data
(ie Xrays, incident reports, etc.)

:yellow:

no charge :)








 
Nostix said:
In Canada, capital gains are actually taxed at half of your marginal tax rate. You get to keep comparatively more money from an investment than you do from a regular paycheck.

My point is that the pension no matter how much it is doesn't get taxed at all. I don't care how much or how little they take in taxes the fact that they take any is what pisses me off.
 
mover1 said:
If you go and listen to the podcast I linked earlier you will hear Mr Blackburn talk about how the new systems helps veterans. At one point he implies that the DVA gives 75% salaries until we get retrained and working again. (I thought this was a SISIP benefit correct me if I am wrong) and he say the NVC will help because under the old system veterans waited around month to month for their cheques like we were lazy and on welfare.

he pissed me off

It sounds like he has no idea that the system is broken.

Waiting around for a monthly payment....I don't believe Mr Blackburn was waiting around in Afganistan "waiting" for airburst to come in to repel a ambush...or waiting for a chopper to come and extract your best friend who has his jaw ripped off and is lying in a puddle of his own blood feces and sand. Or waiting to see if that Pri cas is going to turn into a VSA...which is professional talk for Mrs.whomever's son/ your driver is gonna die on his way to KAF.
 
May be Mr Blackburn should have his pension changed to a lump sum so he doesn't have to wait around for it. Oh by the way Mr blackburn your only going to get the equivalent of 6 years worth. But if you invest it you should do well
 
ArmyVern said:
Is this all the result of simply writing it off to "a misguided mob who squanders their disability monies away?" I certainly do not believe this to be the case; nor do many (the majority perhaps??) others.

I am also far from convinced that the yellowed point above is "an invalid and unwinnable argument."

The NVC is certainly better in a few areas than its predecessor. In the areas of OSIS coverage, oversight and access to services - the NVA is by far the superior way to go. It actually corrected a problem in an area that was sorely lacking in the not so recent past. The NVA covering that, access to retraining (if possible) etc etc are ALL superior and are improvements brought with the NVA.

However, that portion of desperately required revamping does not negate DVAs responsibility to ensure that our injured veterans are also looked after financially and physically for their remaining years. This is where the NVA fails miserably. I would agree that some (but certainly not a majority) of lump-sum recipients are 'squandering' that payout away without making wise decisions. Is this because they are young, depressed, injured, suffering continual stress and have been through hell in recent years and thus are having troubles even getting on with a 'normal' life each day let alone being responsible to maintain, invest and provide for their own future despite their OSIS injury where they are having trouble even dealing with mundane & routine daily tasks? Because, certainly some of those who are 'squandering' are exactly like those just described.

How do we solve that? We get rid of the lump sum and return the "financial support" portion of the NVA to a monthly pension. That way, DVA can be assured that soldiers can not simply 'squander it away'.

Additionally, what do we do about the quadruple amputee who has recd a whopping 1/4 million lump-sum? Are you suggesting that he invest it wisely now to provide for his future needs? It certainly seems that that is VACs reasoning and expectation. Here's the reality of that expectation:

DVA is NOT purchasing or modifying a home for that amputee to make it comfortable and liveable (read some stories about our Afghan vets trying to get money out of them via claims for these things --- blood from stone) without one heck of a fight (and sometimes an MP having to make a public comment about it). Thus, that soldier who is permanently disabled is utilizing some (a whole lot!) of this lump sum payout to accomplish that ... simply to be able to get one with daily life in a dignified, but assisted, manner;

DVA is NOT purchasing customized vans, cars, or motorcycles for our veterans in this position either - are they expected to rely on the goodwill of others for life for their transportation needs?? And, these soldiers are all not "lucky" enough to have had their face and story streamlined in the mass media as some sort of poster child which therefore resulted in them seeing these items donated by some worthy business, group or enterprise. I am very glad for those soldiers for they are the lucky few who have had someone from outside DVA provide them with something they desperately required free of charge. Those other soldiers though, some of them are now willing to be poster childs for the other side of the house in the area of "this is where the NVA fails us, your Nation's injured". Those soldiers too are NOT squandering their monies when they purchase these customized vehicles for disabled transport. For them, it is a necessity and a fact of life.

How do we fix that? Once again, we bring back the monthly pension in lieu of the lump-sum payment; this ensures that those pers have the required monthly income - for life - to make payments on those necessities that allow them to repair/replace as required and to LIVE in a respectful and dignified manner. Geez, all problems solved; how easy was that and where is my consulting fee??

So, in essence, in the majority of cases it comes down to: "do I purchase what I need now when I am freshly injured and require it to be able to carry on with life?" or "do I invest my 1/4 mil and live miserably without any semblance of mobility and dignity until I can collect from that invested money years down the road when I really need that income NOW?" Not a nice position to be in is it? Well, that IS the reality that today's vets are facing.

Do that, and VAC doesn't need to worry anymore about "soldiers squandering their disability payouts" and we owe our veterans and our injured that at the very least.

So despite the improvements in the way of mental health and occupational therapy/availability, counselling with the NVA, there has been a distinct reversion and shortfall in the NVAs ability to provide an adequate means that ENSURES (that is their mandate) a financially stable future that will ensure a dignified and acceptable QoL for those with lifelong physical, emotional and mental injuries. This, of course, is just my humble opinion.

DVA polls may (& according to them - do) indicate a different satisfaction rate. I'm STILL waiting to meet a single person who answered "Yes, I am satisfied with the NVA". Where are these satisfied people at?

I've seen enough misinformation posted here and in other forums to stand by my "misguided mob" argument.  What I've often seen is not entirely wrong (there is always a grain of truth in even the most fantastic of rumours), but it is not entirely correct either. 

Once again, I AM NOT DEFENDING THE NVC.  However, I've been involved in enough negotiations on these sorts of things to know that you need to have your ducks in a row in order to produce change.  People who write and implement policy will defend it against all comers, so you need to understand their thought process and produce arguments that show where it was flawed.  Simply saying the lump sum payment is not enough so we need to revert to a monthly pension is not a winning argument because they already have an answer for that (i.e. it just needs to be invested properly).  We need to argue that their actuarial calculations are flawed, that the assumptions (i.e. that injured veterans would invest the money "properly") are flawed, that something additional for home modifications need to be included, etc.  We need to highlight the impediments to "proper" investment. 

Furthermore, the system was changed for specific reasons, which may include the idea that the previous system was fiscally unsustainable (don't quote me on this - I honestly don't know the specific reasoning).  Remember that looking after veterans is only one of the Government's many responsibilities.  All things must be balanced.  And please spare us the the "we owe our veterans everything" argument.  Nobody, including the Government, is disputing that.  The question is, how do we best do that with the resources we have available?  There is no bottomless pit of money and there are many competing demands.  Remember the Government completely overhauled the way the CFSA is managed because the way we were going was unsustainable (talk to GM - we were doing it the same way they were until the mid-90s).  However, no one is complaining (too loudly) about the changes to the CFSA because they were largely transparent to the recipients and in no way have effected the money they receive.

In summary, our arguments for change need to be better.  It is not sufficient to simply scream it's not enough we need more.  We need to show why it's not enough, but that argument cannot be rooted in a comparison to what people received under the Pension Act or a simple statement that a veteran cannot live on that amount.  We have to show how the underlying reasoning is flawed and how it fails in meeting the intent of the NVC itself.  We also need to be receptive to other means of satisfying the requirement.  Thus far, the only solution offered has been a demand to revert to the Pension Act and monthly pension payments.  Frankly, if that was the perfect solution, we'd still be doing it.  Governments do not produce drastic change without forethought and planning in a belief that it is an improvement.  Perhaps a hybrid solution is the most appropriate where we take some aspects of the Pension Act and other policies to inject into the NVC.

Finally, remember that the NVC received all-party support.  We may be able to get it amended, but I highly doubt we'll see it revoked.
 
Tank Troll said:
May be Mr Blackburn should have his pension changed to a lump sum so he doesn't have to wait around for it. Oh by the way Mr blackburn your only going to get the equivalent of 6 years worth. But if you invest it you should do well

You're comparing apples and oranges.  Mr Blackburn's pension is better compared to our CFSA benefits, which are a monthly payment.

Debating 101:  Never give your opponent a chance to prove you wrong on something irrelevant.  Remember it's not enough to simply be right in fights like this.  You have to be seen to be right in the court of public opinion.  Making statements that are easily defeated by facts will cloud people's judgement and help them doubt the veracity of the other things you say.  Emotional outbursts can be self-defeating.
 
Pusser said:
You're comparing apples and oranges.  Mr Blackburn's pension is better compared to our CFSA benefits, which are a monthly payment.

Debating 101:  Never give your opponent a chance to prove you wrong on something irrelevant.  Remember it's not enough to simply be right in fights like this.  You have to be seen to be right in the court of public opinion.  Making statements that are easily defeated by facts will cloud people's judgement and help them doubt the veracity of the other things you say.  Emotional outbursts can be self-defeating.

He still has to wait around every month for ......................... why bother
 
My question, and this may open up a whole new can of worms; If we return to a monthly system, what will happen to those that have fallen under the NVC, and received a lump sum?

dileas

tess
 
The fairest way would be to slightly reduce their monthly payments compared to someone with the same injury, as they already received some of the payments up front. I'm not talking about a massive reduction, $100 a month over 50 years covers off a lump sum of $60,000.
 
PuckChaser said:
The fairest way would be to slightly reduce their monthly payments compared to someone with the same injury, as they already received some of the payments up front. I'm not talking about a massive reduction, $100 a month over 50 years covers off a lump sum of $60,000.

That is in fact a very good deal for the soldiers. So good that you might have trouble getting it past any government accountants.
 
This is just my opinion and not based on anything official whatsoever, but since they received that lump sum expecting no more money from that point forward, wouldn't it make sense to to continue paying them nothing until that lump sum would have been paid and then start giving them the monthly rate?

For ex, if they got $60,000 which would have been $500/mo before, I think the fairest thing would be to wait 120 months (10 years) and then start giving them the $500/mo (?)
 
Back
Top