Increased Disability Award & Retro

I still don't see how they could pay people less the older their claim is. There would be mass rejection of this approach and regardless if someone was paid 100% in 2006 or 100% in 2017 it should work out to your percentage of the 360,000 minus what you have already been given since they classify 360,000 as the benchmark.

Ill have to wait and see how funky their math is when we finally see it in 2025....er I mean sometime in 2017.

Thanks for that VRI.

- Panserbjørn

Panserbjørn wrote:I can't seem to figure out what $290,000 actually means to me. I received 15% at $46,000 in August 2015, 75% at $232,000 January 2016, and 10% at $31,000 May 2016.

Yours is pretty easy. You'll get around $50k. The more recent you got your DA, the more complicated it gets. But yours is simple.

I can't seem to figure out what $290,000 actually means to me. I received 15% at $46,000 in August 2015, 75% at $232,000 January 2016, and 10% at $31,000 May 2016.

ok. I'm not sure starting from the $360k and working back is all that relevent. They likely chose that number because it's slightly more then the civilian equivalent. Or maybe they threw darts at a board or whatever.

The COLA numbers you posted actually make perfect sense when I plug my situation in. I got $260,212 in 2008, at 100%.

So if you take that number, and add all the COLA increases starting from 2009, you end up with just over $310,000, which is of course the amount of 100% award today. Basically, according to VAC, the two numbers are equal. I.e. $260,000 in 2008 is the exact same as $310,000 in 2016, in terms of purchasing power. Which is another reason why I don't think we'll get COLA. Beause in the eyes of VAC, everyones been paid the same. Frankly, if they DO give us COLA, the more recent guys would have a valid grievance. $260,000 in 2008 plus $100,000 in 2017 is significantly more valuable then $310,000 plus $360,000 in 2017, even though both numbers total $360,000

I think the calculation will go like this (Ill use my situation, with my specific numbers in red):

"A
is the amount set out in column 3 of Schedule 3 to the Act, as that Schedule read on April 1, 2017, (100% of the new tables, i.e. $360,000) that corresponds to the member’s or veteran’s extent of disability, as set out in column 2, for which the disability award was received, reduced — for every calendar year from2016 until the year in which the disability award was received — by a percentage calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the percentages (this "reduction number" is $50,934, taking my existing DA of $260,000 and subtracting the difference between being paid out in 2016 and 2008) by which the amounts set out in Schedule 3 to the Act are periodically adjusted; and"

So in my case, A equals $309,066. B equals my existing payout of $260,212, which means my top up will be $48,854

If you run this method for every year under the assumption of 100%, you get pretty much the same number:

2009 award @ 100% (B): $266,717 (2008 award*2.5%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $316,468 ($360,000-$49,751)
Top up (A-B): $49,751

2010 award @ 100% (B): $275,385 (2009 award*3.25%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $327,395 ($360,000-$33,605)
Top up (A-B): $51,010

2011 award @ 100% (B): $286,726 (2010 award*3.34%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $335,629 ($360,000-$24,371)
Top up (A-B): $48,903

2012 award @ 100% (B): $294,754 (2011 award*2.8%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $343,200 ($360,000-$16,800)
Top up (A-B): $48,446

2013 award @ 100% (B): $300,059 (2012 award*1.8%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $348,298 ($360,000-$11,702)
Top up (A-B): $48,239

If you keep going until 2016, you'll get the same thing: no matter what year you got paid out, everyone is moreor less getting the same amount as everyone else with the same %, give or take a half a percentage point or so, depending on your specific circumstances. All 100%'ers will get roughly the same. All 90%'ers the same, etc.

THat's why the example from VAC didn't give the year, because it doesn't really matter. The year matters in the sense that the calculations will be different. But effectively, it all ends up at the same place.

It was a number that I worked out, to explain how and why they could come up with the $360000 total, and make sense of section 21 of the legislation.

21 (1) The Minister must pay to a member or a veteran who received, in whole or in part, a disability award under section 45, 47 or 48 of the Act before April 1, 2017, and who is alive on April 1, 2017, an amount determined in accordance with the formula
A − B
where

A
   is the amount set out in column 3 of Schedule 3 to the Act, as that Schedule read on April 1, 2017, that corresponds to the member’s or veteran’s extent of disability, as set out in column 2, for which the disability award was received, reduced — for every calendar year from2016 until the year in which the disability award was received — by a percentage calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the percentages by which the amounts set out in Schedule 3 to the Act are periodically adjusted; and

B
   is the amount of the disability award that was payable to the member or the veteran under subsection 52(1) of the Act.

So if you deduct all the COLA adjustments that have been calculated since 2006, you come up with a starting point of $290000.

Why would they prorate to $290k? Where did that number come from?

A person who receives 75% of their pay, as long as they were junior ranks can potentially make more money than their pre release salary.

2007 -2.2917%
2008 -2%
2009 -2.5%
2010 -3.25949%
2011 -3.346776%
2012 -2.8%
2013 -1.8%
2014 -0.9%
2015 -1.8%
2016 -1.2%

Like I've said before, If they prorate the NVC 100% amount to $290000 in 2006, then apply the COLA to that amount, it equals the $360000 amount, But by delaying the increase until 2017, they save themselves a years worth of COLA payments.

Yikes. Talk about two tiers of vets.

question for Bigrex: Do you know the specific COLA increase totals by year since the NVC came into force? Can you post it if you do? Doing some calculations and I may be on to something lol.

Or not.

Yes, a Veteran can be getting as much as a 95% PA pension, without a single lump sum award, and still get ELB and PIA/PIAS.

yup you can get the PA pension ELB , PIA and supplement . you cant get the buyout for a percentage you are collecting a PA pension for .

propat

Hold on: are there vets who get a lifelong pension and ALSO got a disability award? And ALSO get PIA and/or EPB?

Yes, I agree Navrat, but the majority of disabled veterans do NOT get CPP(D), PIA or EELB. But if they do, they play off each other. If you get EELB, it deducts 100% of the CPP(D) and CF pension. If you get CPP(D), your CF pension is reduced by hundreds per month. And getting a PA pension does not exclude anyone from colecting these other NVC benefits, so why should recent and future NVC Veterans not also be allowed to get a PA, or similar, disability pension.

well bigrex did the math a while ago and yes it was around 9 years but that was without COLA or wife kids ect . you start adding that stuff it can become 5 years in short order . that's before the increase mind you.

propat