Increased Disability Award & Retro

You really need to be (check out my link below).  
What happened to bringing back the lifelong pension?
What happened to fixing the NVC?

For me, monthly payments are still $2000.00 shy of what my comrades are receiving no matter what way they spin.
I have a lot of documents showing the deceit of all the upper echelon mechanism.  
From the insurance companies to SISIP and VAC they are there to minimize the payout you get.
Does this cause undue stress?
I may or may not go and see a lawyer.


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=smarter+then+the+average+bear&view=detail&mid=F310FB698E74E6030C18F310FB698E74E6030C18&FORM=VIRE

Perhaps they are going to give a flat rate of $2200 per 5% of previously received awards ?

That VRI is the situation I am hoping for.
It also makes me believe someone messed up with their math when posting that example. 11k just happens to be an exact number which is exactly 22% of 50k, seems too perfect.
- Panserbjørn

Of course, then again, if THATS what VAC is doing, then in their own example (soldier pensioned @ 25% will get $11,000) they SHOULD have given $12,500 as their answer.

So frankly, who the f**k knows with these guys?

So if my theory is correct, the formula is simple:

Take the payout chart for 2016 and the one for 2017.

Subtract the 2016 chart number that corresponds to your % from the 2017 number, and there's your answer. It doesn't matter what year you got it at, since all payouts are the same regardless of year.

So in the case of three vets pensioned at 100% in 2006, 100% in 2009, and 100% in 2016, they ALL get the same top up of %
$50,000. (100% from the 2017, subtract 100% from the 2016 chart).

Of course, needless to say, $50,000 is the max top up anyone would get.

I think what VAC can argue is that every vet has gotten the same, in purchasing power, if not in dollars.

So let's say a vet got 100% in 2007, and another one got 100% in 2016. Vet A would get $250,000 and vet B would vet $310,000. It looks like VAC is saying both vets are square. Obviously Vet B got about $60 k more, but the argument is that $250,000 in 2006 is the same in total value as $310,000 in 2016 in terms of purchasing power.

So if VAC considers everyone "square" then the top up will keep everyone equal just by being the same for everyone.

To consider the example, both Vet A and Vet B will get the same top up (around $50,000) and, in the eyes of VAC, will have been paid the exact same amount in value, even though obviously not the same in nominal dollars.

If that makes sense.

Frankly, if we were going to get COLA increases, the vets who came after would prob have a valid complaint.

In the above example, in a scenario where VAC just tops everyone up to $360,000 (so Vet A gets $110,000/as top up and Vet B gets $50,000) Vet B could say that Vet A got more in VALUE even though both received the same nominal value ($360,000).

Vet B could argue (correctly, I might add) that $250,000 in 2006 plus $110,000 in 2017 is worth significantly more then $310,000 in 2016 and $50,000 in 2017, even though the nominal value of $360,000 for each vet.

Panserbjørn the example was posted because it is info , I want the info to continue as it is what CSAT is all about , providing info and assisting each other.
Not providing the info for whatever reason or reasons in particular info coming from DVA is not going to help anyone.

No need to be paranoid posting on CSAT , CSAT encourages everyone to post , that's how the info/help gets out.

I kind I wish they had not posted the example. All it is doing is causing people with paranoia and other issues such as myself, stress. Hell I get paranoid just even making a post on this site.

Would it be a bad thing if it was just your % multiplied by the difference in the disability award cap? Any other way to me seems like it would be unfair to the early NVC veterans or to the newer NVC veterans.

- Panserbjørn

VRI yes I read that as well but without the year given its a little hard to tell for sure a couple of different examples would even be better .

the problem with this is vets that got bought out in 06 will be getting a lot less for the same percentage than those bought out in 2016 this is unfair especially since they said they mere going to have COLA applied to this in their initial announcement .

ya see what im saying .

propat

Big Rex, I think what's going on is that everyone will get the same top up as everyone else with the same %.

So someone with 25% in 2007 will get the same as someone with 25% in 2014, and so on.

That's my guess as to why they didn't include the year of the award, because it doesn't matter.

All 100%'ers get the same, all 95%'ers etc.

That's how I read it at least.

Hope I'm wrong.

Ah well that makes sense. I think that is an unfair way to do it.

well pans it APPEARS like they are reducing the amount they will be paying you the longer back you go . the guys bought out in 2006 would get less that those bought out in 2016 for the same percentage . thats what it SEEMS .

so im guessing they don't want a whole lot of vets screaming about this before they even get it passed .

propat

I just don't understand why they would intentionally keep us in the dark when the calculation is meaningless until it gets approved anyway. I was lucky though when it came to VA though, the only thing I have currently had to appeal will be my PIAS.

thats right trooper 11000 does not fit for 25% in any year as to how the initial announcement was made witch sounded exactly like howie1,s example .

they seem to not want to tell us what they are up to . as bigrex pointed out if they told us the year that 11000 applied to we would probably be able to figure out what they are doing pretty quick . so they probably left it out in an attempt to keep us in the dark .

propat

Rex and Propat can jump in here but at this point using the VAC example for the award increase they must be looking or using a different calculating format that we've been using.

In their example they use the 25% mark and the $11000 retro.

Here's the thing , 25% of $360000 = $90000

25% of $310378 =$77594.5



Using our calculations $90000 - $77594.5 = $12405.5 retro

But at today's Maximum amount of award is set at $310378 , so the maximum 25% calculation cannot exceed the $77594.5 , therefore to come up with the VAC retro number of $11000 , they must be using a calculation method that is not in sink with ours ?