Soldiers squander disability payouts

[CallOfDuty]

However, one thing that I think people are missing is that the lump sum payment is not intended to be placed under a mattress and provide sufficient funds for the rest of one's life.  The intent is that it is to be invested and the interest is supposed to provide income for the rest of one's life.  Presumably, the lump sum payment is of sufficient amount to purchase an annuity that would provide a monthly payment of about the same amount of the older pension plan.

  My point was that you are wrong.  You presumed what the lump sum was for...and that's not what it's for.  According to VAC ...."The disability award is meant to recognize and compensate for the non-economic impacts of a service-related disability."

 

[George Wallace]

And if your "investment choice" did not tank as many others did over the last couple of years, you are still behind the eight ball and losing.  The only winner here is VA with all the bucks they save.  Any time they trumpet that they are doing something for our benefit, like this NCV usually it's BS and all smoke and mirrors.  I really hope that I never need the services of these clowns.  It's like the insurance industry, you may wish to suck it up as they will hammer you for putting in a claim and cut to ribbons what you do claim.

You left out the fact that the "mandarin" that had his staff save all this money, and at the same time had them contribute more than any other Dept to the United Way, gets a six figure bonus at the end of the year.   

 

[Pusser]

  My point was that you are wrong.  You presumed what the lump sum was for...and that's not what it's for.  According to VAC ...."The disability award is meant to recognize and compensate for the non-economic impacts of a service-related disability."

No I am not wrong.  The lump sum payment replaced the monthly payment under the Pension Act, which states:

2. The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.
R.S., c. 22(2nd Supp.), s. 1.

This shows that the intent of the Pension Act was essentially the same as what VAC is now saying - that the payment, in whatever form, is to provide compensation for service-related injury and/or disability.  The only thing that has changed in this regard is the method of payment.  Now, instead of receiving a monthly pension, the recipient is simply given the means to purchase an investment vehicle to provide that monthly pension.

Theoretically, nothing much has changed in what the should get in the long run.  What has changed is that now the recipient has been saddled with a much greater responsibility to manage the benefit in order to get it.

On a final note, please do not think that I think this is the best way to provide for injured and/or disabled veterans.  Frankly, they generally have enough crap on their plate that adding the kinds of decisions required to properly manage the lump sum payment is a recipe for disaster.  However, in presenting arguments for policy change, one needs to have a full understanding of what's involved. 

 

[armyvern]

No I am not wrong.  The lump sum payment replaced the monthly payment under the Pension Act, which states:

2. The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.
R.S., c. 22(2nd Supp.), s. 1.
...

Theoretically, nothing much has changed in what the should get in the long run.  What has changed is that now the recipient has been saddled with a much greater responsibility to manage the benefit in order to get it.
...

The greater part and what you fail to take into account is that the NVC has the Vets themselves assuming ALL the financial risk by trying to "invest" a lump sum into a plan that will provide for a monthly stipend on which they can live monthly in a dignified and respectful manner.

If those Vets fail at that - too bad for them; DVA is off the hook. That's wrong.

These vets have already risked enough, and, have already lost enough ---- else they wouldn't be involved withg DVA nor receiving lump sums in the first place.

It is DVAs job to assume the risk and ensure those Vets (who already assumed their risk) who are injured due to their service are looked after for the long term - not the Vets themselves.

DVA is NOT an investment tool or a stockbroker firm. It's raison d'etre is to look after our injured vets - it is NOT to pass them off to Bay Street.

 

[dapaterson]

Vern:  I think Pusser has made it clear that he's explaining the thought process, and not necessarily supporting the end-state.

Or, in other words, he's making sure we understand how things got to where they are - since any attempts to change or influence change must start with an understanding of where things are today to know where discussions have to start.

 

[armyvern]

Vern:  I think Pusser has made it clear that he's explaining the thought process, and not necessarily supporting the end-state.

Or, in other words, he's making sure we understand how things got to where they are - since any attempts to change or influence change must start with an understanding of where things are today to know where discussions have to start.

DAP,

Am posting loaded; please use english.  8)

 

[dapaterson]

Vern:

We have to know what the current situation is and how we got here before we can try to make any changes.

Saying "This bites" doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

[armyvern]

Vern:

We have to know what the current situation is and how we got here before we can try to make any changes.

Saying "This bites" doesn't really get us anywhere.

This does bite. Understanding what DVAs raison d'etre is supposed to be as opposed to what it currently seems to be is also important. We got here precisely because they have forgotten that role with the NVC.

Currently, they are acting as referral agents for stockbrokers on Bay Street.

That is not what DVA was intended to do. Their primary task is far different - it's to look after Vets - and they ain't getting the job done with the NVC.

IMHO.

 

[mbtshoes]

Yes,I agree with you!Too much money too fast without a plan will get our guys into trouble fast.  Perhaps that is why the high schools here are starting a new compulsory credit course on financial planning and budgeting.

 

[CallOfDuty]

Pusser, Seen.  I get what you are saying now.  It's just frustrating when you work with people who are fully functional members in the workplace...can pass a PT test no problem....and for the most part are living normally with a bad knee or creaky ankles and make 600$$ a month for the rest of their lives tax free under the old veterans affairs pension.
  Then you take me, who had a severe injury...will definately impact the rest of my life, not just work wise but at home as well, I will most likely have to change trades, if not ,get released...and they throw me a one time 5% disability award??  That will in no way, provide to me long term what a monthly tax free disability award would provide....no matter how it's invested. 
  Sorry if it sounds like I'm bitching.....

 

[PuckChaser]

  Sorry if it sounds like I'm bitching.....

You're not bitching. The lump sum award was designed to save them money and screw us. You have a valid point.

 

[shamu]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/08/19/f-veterans-anger.html

 

[dogger1936]

Pusser, Seen.  I get what you are saying now.  It's just frustrating when you work with people who are fully functional members in the workplace...can pass a PT test no problem....and for the most part are living normally with a bad knee or creaky ankles and make 600$$ a month for the rest of their lives tax free under the old veterans affairs pension.
  Then you take me, who had a severe injury...will definately impact the rest of my life, not just work wise but at home as well, I will most likely have to change trades, if not ,get released...and they throw me a one time 5% disability award??  That will in no way, provide to me long term what a monthly tax free disability award would provide....no matter how it's invested. 
  Sorry if it sounds like I'm bitching.....

Aint bitching at all brother. many of us are in the same boat.

 

[OldSolduer]

If we want to change things, we have to act. Writing MPs is one way. Vets who are already retired/released can speak to the media. This issue has to be kept in the spotlight, because its my feeling that once that last troop leaves Afghanistan....people will start forgetting. And that includes politicians, VAC and even some of our own uniformed members.

 

[mover1]

I just wrote a letter to the Royal Canadian Legion saying that they helped uus get into this mess then they can help us get out of it too.

 

[Pusser]

The greater part and what you fail to take into account is that the NVC has the Vets themselves assuming ALL the financial risk by trying to "invest" a lump sum into a plan that will provide for a monthly stipend on which they can live monthly in a dignified and respectful manner.

If those Vets fail at that - too bad for them; DVA is off the hook. That's wrong.

These vets have already risked enough, and, have already lost enough ---- else they wouldn't be involved withg DVA nor receiving lump sums in the first place.

It is DVAs job to assume the risk and ensure those Vets (who already assumed their risk) who are injured due to their service are looked after for the long term - not the Vets themselves.

DVA is NOT an investment tool or a stockbroker firm. It's raison d'etre is to look after our injured vets - it is NOT to pass them off to Bay Street.

I haven't failed to take anything into account.  I am fully aware of the consequences of DVA actions and in fact I even stated that veterans are left holding the bag of responsibility for their own futures (as opposed to the previous method).  For the record, I do NOT support this aspect of the NVC.  But understanding it is important in order to fight it.  Presenting emotional arguments based on half-truths and misunderstanding gets you nowhere and in fact can cause even bigger problems.  It remains to be seen whether Col Stogran's public rant will help or hinder the cause.

On another note, it is worth noting that the people who came up with this did not spend their nights lying awake, thinking up ways to screw vets.  I think they honestly believed they were doing a good thing.  Remember, this received ALL party support, so be wary when the opposition parties start campaigning that they support vets while the Governement does not.  Frankly, most parties have a lot to answer for in their treatment of veterans and the military for the last 50 years.

 

[Rifleman62]

Another sage post Pusser.

 

[mover1]

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=140575162639696&ref=mf

This is on Facebook. I find it quite interesting. And relevant to the topic.

BTW I got two replies from the legion today.

"The New Veterans Charter comprises more than just a lump sum award. It also includes other financial benefits such as Earnings Loss Benefits which can benefit not only the Veteran but his/her spouse. As member of the NVC Advisory Group, we have identified gaps in the programs and services provided under the NVC. This is where we are focusing our advocacy.
Pierre"

Thanks for  your comments.  The Legion is working to fix the New Veterans Charter and along with the other veteran organizations, we sit as part of the NVC Advisory Group.  This group has made a series of recommendations which are being considered.  In addition, we have testified before parliamentary and senate committees on what we believe should be fixed with the New Veterans Charter.

We are working on your behalf to get this done.

Sincerely,

B.K. (Brad) White

 

[Kat Stevens]

So apparently, there are four great un-truths, not just three...  >

 

[Rifleman62]

Question: How many of the RCL members that sit as part of the NVC Advisory Group have former service in the Military?