What would you do to get 66 000 000$, (disapointment) !

i lost wife kids house and had to buy another.i needed to use my rrsp money under the home buyers plan as a down payment as thats all i had left.for me to use rrsps id have to pay back the 20000 in the home buyers plan first.

propat

$69,093.00 owed back two years and going forward not received
-$12,319.00 owed to Law firm 17.83% for doing nothing after May 2008 and excepting everything offered
-$24,838.00 owed for 10% Alberta tax and 26% Federal tax
------------------------------------
$31,936.00 return or 46% for bills and Ferret food.

Its obvious I am making a big mistake here.

I had 180 days of leave accumulated when I went 3B. It filled my and my wife's RRSP.

I just turned 50 so no RDSP now.

I agree Robbie, because even while I was able to work, it was barely above minimum wage. Now after several years, my retro and interest , after legal and taxes, will likely get rid of hopefully half of my debts, but it won't leave me with anything to set aside for the future or protected from taxes

Has anyone ever stopped and wondered WHAT ABOUT THOSE THAT CAN NOT AFFORD TO INVEST:, all I hear is how to fight the tax man and how to save money. Well let me tell you folks a lot of people that had their LTD benefits stolen from them for even a 24 months to 10 or more plus years have been on the bottom of the pay scale so long that when they receive anything it will go directly to bills and loans. I know that the average class member has been living on credit and loans since leaving the forces. If you ask me I think it wiser to tell them how to spend something that they will see for,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 hour until it is given to banks, auto dealers, student loans for kids or a well deserved holiday. The act of stealing our LTD benefits have caused more calateral damage than the GOC, MC or Justice Barnes can imagine. I won't be rich but hopefully I will only be 10 years away from where I should be

RCN...........the 1.9 billion is a government figure which also includes the cost of stopping the ELB and various allowances that are not clawed back any more.

the 887 million figure is an estimate from the actuary that was hired to look at the books.

Yes the fee's are up there, however where would we be without MC? The judge is in a position to adjust the fee's and chances are he will. It hurts but, it's the cost of doing buisness.

17.83% of 1.9 billion is $33,870,000 per person we would have to pay (each)

The smoke and mirrors continues.

very well written rcn retire! dont won,t worry about the 1.9 billion, just before they cut our checks mc going to state it was 27 billion and take all the 887 million.... mombo jombo at its best

It has taken me a while to read through the 11 pages of this particular forum and as always there seems to be a disparity of opinions but always interesting. I was one of the individuals that wrote to the judge expressing concern over the dollar amount of the requested legal fees. I have also stated that I very much appreciate the efforts of MC but also have indicated my frustration for some of the confusion they have caused. The legal fight was for the clawback fees, to my knowledge it was not until after the proposed deal was sent out to us that fees on future funds was mentioned. Then came the 7.5% fee on the total funds recouped which sounds so much better than 30%. Now in MCs reply to K9 comes a figure of 1.9B overall! Where did this number come from? In my short time here the figure started at around $430 million, then ballooned to $888 million and now PD mentions $1.9 BILLION. I also believe that our legal firm has not done a very good job post announcement of the agreement, they have not explained very well the financial aspects that as class members we can expect, other than state it is different for each of us, plus they have no accountants on staff. Well I say for $66 million hire an accountant to put together better facts then those examples posted on their website back in January. Not a lot of work to put examples for each province as well as to advise us on some tax suggestions that we would have to pursue on our own with our own accountants. They did not explain what we should have expected on February 15th, they knew that the judge was not going to give his answer that day and they should have for $66 million ensured that as a class we all understood that the decision would not be presented on the 15th rather the judge would have to put it in writing then there would have to be some translations done to both official languages so decision would must likely not be known until early March at the earliest. That very short note they posted after the fact was in my opinion not something one would expect from a company seeking $66 million in wages. For $66 million one would have expected a few press releases trying to get the media to come out and report on this travesty that our government placed on those of us that have paid a heavy price in the name of democracy. Again, I wrote to CTV National but they ignored this and other than Global Halifax (which I watched on Bell here on the west coast) I saw nothing on any other news channel. For $66 million I for one expected more but it seems the 8,000 plus hours the legal team put in getting us to the agreement was in some people's opinion enough work for the fee sought. It was interesting the point about risk and that when the GoC indicated they would not appeal, the risk was negated. I for one am all for paying a reasonable fee but please for those that feel we are getting a deal because we could be out 30% read the facts, when this went to a class action 30% was never in the cards. $33 million as Teen indicated in an earlier post or 7.5% of the retro is a very good deal for MC and it puts $33 million in the pockets to those it was originally stolen from, we the veterans and our families. The going forward monies is pie in the sky because there are to many variables on our collecting these fees. I posted on a different forum that SISIP has already told me that I have to apply for CPP D and if I get this that they will decrease my LTD by the same amount so why should MC expect to gain a fee from my CPPD? I have to live till age 65 but if not why would MC think they are entitled to a fee on funds that I would not collect? As indicated so many variables and so much confusion. So why did MC muddy the waters by bringing up the going forward funds and that the fee worked out to only 7.5% of the total funds? Why now throw in a $1.9 Billion figure? It would appear at least to me that there is far to much confusion and much of it could have been and should have been addressed by our lawyers especially for the fee they are expecting us to pay them! This vet is of the opinion $66 million is to high of a fee and am so hopeful that Justice Barnes sees fit to reduce the fee to down closer to 5-7% of the retro funds or around $25 million, still a very good salary for the law firm. Respectfully.[code]

ya rex the compound nature of the calcs really sticks it to ya dont it.

propat

Unfortunately, the only class members who will not be be negatively affected by the deemed taxes are those either currently in their initial 24 months or released within the last 4 years. Even the 24 month guys will get heavily penalized if their money was back five, ten or more years ago. This puts me right at the cusp, since my SISIP ended just over 5 years ago, on the 4 of January 2008, so I'm not sure which, if any will benefit me more than the other.

I agree Maggie this TOP UP has really taken any action, we could have taken away , as GOC will say we have been compensated. I feel now that this is a waste of my time, and dont wanna relive the anger of this unjust taxation again, so I'll use lube this time, because this time I'll see it comming when I am bent over by the CRA. Our Lawyers have used us long retros, as cash cows, and then fed us to the wolves.

you may be right maggie but i dont think so not the way it is written anyway.i think its definatly worth a shot as we have given away our rights to sue the goc again over the clawback however we have not traded away our rights to seek fair treatment by the CRA.

allways question athority

propat

For most people it is actually better that they withhold 30%... but like propat said it is really irrelevant to the discussion. The amount you will owe is what is important, and each person has to do everything they can to lessen that.

Propat... I really, truly wish you well on your journey to fight the tax penalties... unfortunately I think the GOC covered their butt with the 3.25% top-up.... It doesn't do us long term zero-sum people much good,but will cover the extra for a lot of 2 year or non zero-sum people, and it gives the CRA and out to say it was dealt with in negotiations like it should have been.