Response to buyout increase question and lifelong pension question

Might be trivial to some, but money owed is money owed.  I see the GOC is hoping we all die before 1st April 2017, so they don't have to pay the top up.  

Let's say I do get hit by a bus driven the MVA Mr. Kent Hehr on March 31st 2017 and his Deputy General (retired) Walt Natynczyk CMM MSC can not do CPR correctly on me and I expire.

Why would anyone's spouses, kids, family members not be entitled to this top up that is past due.  The chances of someone not getting this top up is reall and in reality I hope no one's family has to deal with this.  I wonder if anyone with a lawyer friend could address this comment by myself.

Should we address this?

If it comes from a politician prior to the act and regulations being completed than it is just pie in the sky. To many times have we seen speculation done with good intentions get veterans excited only to be let down when things are finalized. These guys are going to continue to deny, nickel and dime us and screw us for as long as the voters allow them to screw us. Thus far it has been a very long time. I have such a hate on for most politicians, lie, lie and betray us is the only thing that is consistent from them.

Bruce, the way that I believe it will work, is that they will create a new rate table for 2009. So if they prorate the 2006 maximum payment to $290000, as I've suggested as a possibility, a new 20% payment for 2006 would be $58000. They will then add the COLA for each subsequent year, so that a new 2009 20% disability award will be approx $62028, with a top up of $22250. The problem is that we are getting different examples, at both ends of the spectrum. The VAC website listed an example of someone who received a previous 25% award getting $11000, and now the person who wrote to Propat said a 100% award in 2006 could net a person more than a $110000 top up. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason with these examples, and they didn't provide any numbers or details to back up their claims.

@bigrex

So does this make sense?  Disability award of 22% in 2017 of  $72,000 minus disability award of 22% in 2009 of 39,778.68 = 32,228.00 minus COLA of 24% ($9600) = $22,621.32 as a retro top-up?

My numbers may be off a little, but this is just for the sake of argument.

Bruce

Omnia mea mecum porto

yes bigrex that's his benefit they still owe that member cola as well buds .

propat

I'm just curious but so many times have I heard that protesting on Rememberance Day is taking away the respect for our fallen soldiers. I query this as propat mentioned above but do the families of fallen soldiers WWII who lose benefits because there husbands pass away and they find themselves fighting the government for benefits they once had. I realize the lifelong benefit should be reinstated but I fear it will not. Should we not respect the wives/husbands that lose there life partner as well. Maybe it's time we give them that extra jolt they need and that includes the legion that no longer have our backs. This is just a question in the back of my mind.

propat, reading the entire legislation has nothing to do with this particular item, the lump sum top up.

The only section dealing with it reads

"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 in laymen terms,  

A - B

A - equals the amount for the disability at the level it is assessed (100% = $360000), minus the annual COLA that has been added since the year the award was received.

B - the amount that has been previously paid out as a lump sum award.

It lays it out rather clearly as far as legislation is concerned. But you seem to be keying in on the one sentence by this staffer who states "Veterans assessed at 100% who received a Disability Award in 2006, may in fact receive more than $110,000." This is patently absurd, and she is talking out of her arse. A person who received $250000 in 2006, cannot receive more than $110000, because that would pay out more than the new $360000 maximum. Maybe she meant to say $11000. She also stated that they will take the new maximum award, and recalculate rate tables for each year, using the CPI, which has increased by just over 24% since 2006. But like I said, the top up amount will depend on whether they merely deduct that 24% from the new $360000 award, or take the time to find an amount, where adding that 24% would bring it to $360000.

yes bigrex it will be reduced exactly like you said buds IN THAT ONE PART OF THE LEGISLATION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT . wholly frack I get that your numbers are correct I understand that . but they are also NOW applying the COLA to the benefit in the very same proposed legislation you are talking about , ya gotta stop looking at one para of the proposed legislation and look at ALL OF IT .

they NOW by the proposed legislation HAVE TO APPLY COLA to the buyout . your numbers as I have said are correct FOR THE INCREASE to the buyout but IF they follow the legislation BY LAW they would STILL have to add COLA to that to get your retro payment .

buds just answer this question pleas .

if you got a buyout of 110 k 10 years after the fact and by legislation your retro is suppose to include COLA but you only get 110 k would you not be looking for your COLA ?

oh another question .

look at the proposed legislation and you tell me by actually reading it . are they NOW applying COLA to this ????

read it before you answer buds .

propat

I say no . now regardless of what they say the lifelong pension will be , and it aint lookin good , if its an option it will be an option for ALL past and future . IT MUST BE . or I promise you this . that sign I want to wave during remembrance instead of standing silent like a fracking coward while politicians speak , the very politician's who by through their actions have showed more disrespect to the fallen than they would if they just peed on their graves , WILL BE WAVED while they speak .

will it have any effect ? hope so . but if not ill still be able to regain a little self respect . maybe not enough to look in the mirror again without being disgusted after all the years of just standing their silent and listening to their BS but at least it will be something .

propat

Actually Propat, the legislation says that the top up will be reduced by the annual CPI, up to the year it was received. So the end date is the day you received the original lump sum award. the only question will be, and will truly be left unanswered until the regulations are released, is when will the start date be? Will it be April 1st 2006, and then adding the CPI to get the new award tables? Or will the start point be Jan 01 2017, subtracting the CPI, to create the new tables? How they do it, will greatly affect the outcome. After all $290000 + 24.138% equals $360000.20, but $360000 minus 24.138% equals $273103.2

bigrex - In the back of my jumbled mind, I had the same thought as you about this retro. Are they going to pull another fast one, and wait to announce the life long, after the retro is paid out. That way , maybe if you are given the retro, you will be screwed out of the lifelong? Or am I totally of my head on this one? VVV...

bigrex you said " Yes Propat, but they are not going to pay COLA, for years after the payments were made. "

but bigrex that's EXACTLY what the legislation states their IS NOT START OR CUT OFF DATE in the legislation when it refers to COLA .

THEY by the proposed legislation ARE legally obligated to apply it not to the table but the ACTUAL BENIFIT ITSELF seriously read it again .

if my theory is correct it not only corresponds to the response I received but to the legislation TO THE LETTER .

do I think this is the easiest way to do this ????


frack NOOOOO not in a longshot I wold have written the legislation differently for sure but I'm sure the idiot lawyers in the DOJ have a good reason for doing so I suppose and hey I'm just an infantry CPL for 20 fracking years so what the frack do I know .

to me its still a COLA recovery thing like I said from day one but your theory may be correct as well only the regulations will truly tell I think .

propat

ya ya dis pinger that's why I stated above " IF this response from the ministers office is an honest one " (ya notice I stressed the if) and is why I continually stress this is such a botched piece of legislation we will not no ANYHING for sure until we see the regs .

but the thing is we were questioning what THE LEGISLATION meant . AND THAT my friend is worth fricking and fracking about .

best to stop a bad piece of legislation BEFORE its passed than AFTER its much easies .

for that ya really need to know if it is in fact good or bad .

the GOC don't like to tip their hand either way moast of the time so ya gotta prod .

one thing I do know is the proposed legislation says they will apply COLA to the buyout without a start date ore cut off date .

so whatever buyout you get beit 50 k or 110 k if your retro and calculation sheet doesn't include COLA you ARE still entitled to it .

if ya get a 50 k increase on your buyout and then they apply COLA and add that to your buyout to give you your retro your good .

if they give you a 110 k increase on your buyout and add NO COLA to your retro THEY STILL OWE YOU COLA .

if they don't give it you go to court to get it and ya don't need a lawyer ya just need your calc sheet and a very small piece of the legislation you WILL GET THE COLA on the 110 k hands down !!!!

always fracking question authority

propat

But like I said before, I'm just hoping that they are not providing this top up, as compensation for excluding us from the new monthly pension, once it is introduced.

Yes Propat, but they are not going to pay COLA, for years after the payments were made. If they increase the 100% amount in 2006 to $290000, but a Veteran was awarded their lump sum in 2009, they will take $290000, and add the CPI for 2007 (2.2917%), 2008 (2%) and 2009 (2.5%), putting a 100% lump sum award in 2009 at $303197. The top up would be the difference between that and what was originally paid in 2009, which was approximately $267000. I'm not grasping at straws, to fit into my theory. I'm taking what they are saying, comparing that to the legislation, and looking at other examples of dirty tricks VAC has used to reduce their financial liability to come up with a logical estimate of what to expect. I would rather everyone plans for the worst case scenario, and be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong, than plan for a windfall, then feel screwed over if I was right.