Increased Disability Award & Retro

well buds that's great you make that point you rant away a lot of us here do understand and agree and im guessing its ALL of us.

propat

Also, when I received a lump some four years ago I did not think or demand a increase in my payment. The lump some payment in my case was 180 k off based in regards to the old pension for life. This was based on my percent and only living to average life of 72.

They (government) know they have short changed us, why else would they be offering a 50k top up for vets at 100%. Where is the rest of!!! 130k

They are buying us off and trying to calm us down. They will change there mind again later in the year. That's why they are not paying us till next year. MVA needed something to show the vets and people, he will fix it next year. Lol

What they don't know, how it feels to be lied too and to be treated like a second class veteran. Waiting, and waiting and waiting. Still waiting.

Oh gee, now I feel better with my rant. Next move, hmmm bottle or pills. Hmmmm

Ps I try to make a point, guys don't take me to serious.
I am just waiting, and waiting and still waiting.

Well I would take the COLA any day over interest rates.

Average COLA last 5 years is 2%.


TD High Interest Savings Account2
$0 to $4,999.99 0.00%
$5,000 to $9,999.99 0.55%
$10,000 to $24,999.99 0.55%


COLA for me.

Go Ask Alice when she's 10 feet tall

Then why is the main point in this conversation COLA? it's a conversation that is going down an empty rabbit hole in my opinion.

Lost interest is more important in my opinion and I am wondering if anyone has approached the Minister about this issue?

teen of course NO ONE did I have NOT said they did or or even IMPLY they did in any way shape or form !!!!!!!!

propat

You are looking to deep. The lump sum will follow the COLA that is applied to all other NVC financial benefits going forward. Forward being the key word propat. To prove my point name one person who has received a COLA adjustment to their lump sum payment?

The difference is past reciepients do not get the COLA on a lump sum. It's a one and done payment from VAC.

VAC has finally brought the lump sum amount to the Cdn Avg and it only makes sense to have it increase yearly with COLA for future recipients only. If they don't apply COLA to the lump sum then they are only creating the same problem again.

What is a legit point to bring to light is lost interest from past lump sum payments that did not meet the Cdn. Avg lump sum payout.

well they announced the change to the adjustment to align it with other NVC benefits in the budget announcement . sooo to me this very much does matter . if in fact it was a mistake and they put that in by mistake because they don't have a clue then your right it really doesn't matter .

propat

Just a point here but I don't see why there is a discussion about COLA on what is a one time payment. So COLA has absolutely nothing to do with it....except for the next year's total amount for the next injured CF member.

What I think everyone who has received a NVC payment is interest lost not COLA.

The court mandated amount for the Canadian National Average was $357K. So with VAC topping it to $360K is the extra $3K enough to cover the interest of a max payout from 2006?

well buds that's just it . the old legislation I understand , mind you I have the regs for that , the budget announcements seemed simple and easy to understand . the proposed legislation , mind you without the regs as of yet, SEEM to be heading in a different direction.

you remember we have been through this exercise before with legislation that didn't look to bad to then read the regs that turned the legislation into some sort of a sick joke . ya you remember .

ya know I just really think regs should be published at the same time as the corresponding legislation so it would be a crapload easier to decipher given ALL the info and not just part of it .

propat

I don't know what to say Propat, about why they said that they did. Maybe there was some confusion between the various benefits? The ELB is capped at 2%, which they promised to remove. So maybe they thought they all were capped? Who knows. After all, the legislation is confusing for many people, including some VAC staff. Unless Trudeau and Hehr fully studied the NVC, and the regulations, they too could have made some wrong assumptions. We will have to wait until the new regulations are made public to truly know how indexing will work, going forward.

well big rex that is exactly what it seems to me . how are they going to ....

,"" and aligning it with other NEW VETERANS CHARTER benefits by indexing it to inflation."""

"ALL of the charts are increased the SAME WAY already "

the ONLY difference is that buyouts DONT get paid the increase and the rest do .

to align it with the other NVC benefits they would need to correct this .

if they are not going to correct this why this announcement ?????

the CHARTS are already aligned and I mean EXACTLY .

the only difference is the payments .

propat

I don't think that they intended to make it sound like we are going to top up the lump sum every year for everyone, just that the lump sum amount will be indexed every year for inflation. This type of confusion is why the MVA and VAC needs to put out some examples of what Veterans could be seeing, in terms of money, from these changes.

For example, a veteran assessed at 100% in 2006 will see a top up of X number of dollars, while a Veteran assessed at 100% in 2011 will get X number of dollars. Surely they have some sort of idea of how they will implement the promise, even if they don't have the funds to do it yet.

yup get that as well buds I get that .

ok that's the adjustments to the amount's that's fine but not exactly what im looking for .and maybe it will end up in the regs . thing is adjusting the amounts in the shedual does not pay the COLA increase annually it just increases the amount's going forward .

im looking for something like and addition to 52(1) of the act

maybe reading something like ... plus an annual payment equal to the increase in column 3 of shedual 3 that corresponds to the extent of the members disability in column 2.

or something like that it late lol but im sure you get the picture .

ya

um bottom line if they are going to do this im thinking 52(1) of the act is where it should go .can they do it in the regs ??? yup im sure they can I just think it belongs in the act itself .

propat

As far as the indexing is concerned, I cannot find anything specific in the legislation, old or new. But in the regulations, it states the following

"(2) The amounts set out in column 2 of items 2.2, 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 to the Act and all the amounts in column 3 of Schedule 3 to the Act shall be adjusted on January 1 of every calendar year so that the amount payable for that year equals the product obtained by multiplying

(a) the amount payable in the preceding calendar year
by
(b) the ratio that the basic pension payable in the calendar year bears to the basic pension payable in the preceding calendar year."

So maybe once the regulations are released, it will change it to:

"(2) The amounts set out in column 2 of items 2.2, 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 to the Act and all the amounts in column 3 of Schedule 3 to the Act shall be adjusted on January 1 of every calendar year so that the amount payable for that year equals the product obtained by multiplying

(a) the amount payable in the preceding calendar year
by
(b) the calculated annual Consumer Price Index (CPI)"