- Reaction score
- 4,777
- Points
- 1,060
upandatom said:
Please tie your statement to the thread subject. If the connection is specious, kindly delete it and move it to politics.
Tanks!
Milnet.ca Staff
VAC Return to Lifetime Pensions Discussion
- Thread starter Teager
- Start date
Please tie your statement to the thread subject. If the connection is specious, kindly delete it and move it to politics.
Tanks!
Milnet.ca Staff
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,477
- Points
- 1,260
Teager said:
Of course he also said that 2015 would be our last FPTP election... So really who knows :dunno:
Teager
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 230
I was simply quoting what came from the horse's mouth. Plus NAFTA can be in constant negotiation for a long time no matter the "deadlines" Trump gives.
Back to the topic tho if an election were held I honestly don't think there would be any change to the PFL at least not by April 1. If we have learned anything it's that any changes to veterans benefits are very slow and take years.
Back to the topic tho if an election were held I honestly don't think there would be any change to the PFL at least not by April 1. If we have learned anything it's that any changes to veterans benefits are very slow and take years.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I've gotta be missing something why am I the only one excited about the half million dollar est cheque I have coming in April?
Considering I thought I got all I was going to get cash wise bring rated at 100 now. Help me get mad here guys what's up with this deal that's bad? Aside from the monthly payment option, ya that's not livable but in this case we are just discussing the pain and suffering benefit. It's not intended to live on that's what the main program is set up for, (min of 48k/yr).
They are obviously encouraging the lump sum options which is high risk for a million reasons , but now that half a million dollar cheques are being issued multiplys the risk.
Again dont get me wrong, Im excited for a big cheque I had no idea was coming. My question is why aren't you? (No attitude, honest question as I think I'm missing something).
Thanks
Considering I thought I got all I was going to get cash wise bring rated at 100 now. Help me get mad here guys what's up with this deal that's bad? Aside from the monthly payment option, ya that's not livable but in this case we are just discussing the pain and suffering benefit. It's not intended to live on that's what the main program is set up for, (min of 48k/yr).
They are obviously encouraging the lump sum options which is high risk for a million reasons , but now that half a million dollar cheques are being issued multiplys the risk.
Again dont get me wrong, Im excited for a big cheque I had no idea was coming. My question is why aren't you? (No attitude, honest question as I think I'm missing something).
Thanks
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
dunlop303 said:
Don't get me wrong. I am too. It's a total life changer to hopefully recieve it. I just have a hard time believing the current government.
They would push for the lump sum, it probably has some strings attached like that's it's amd that's all, you won't get future adjustments for interest rates etc. Which I'm fine with as I could make more and have it more useful in investing in my LIRA and pension.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Jesus, if they went back on it at this point. That would be ugly. Though they really should have kept all this advertising in house untill parliamentary approval. But again, thinking like a politician tell the vets there getting hundreds of thousands in pretty colorful ads, then put it on parliament to reject it. Lol pretty smart power move.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Just a sanity check here, if we chose under the pain and suffering compensation a lump sum payment, it is NOT the full value of payments for the projected life expectancy, rather it is 100% of the disability award maximum at that time? Just caught that in the fine print.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Dunlop303, where in the fine print did you see that? Just to have a look at the reference?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
On the factsheet for the pain and suffering compensation, under payments / lump sum option:
"Lump sum:
The highest possible lump sum payment of the PSC would be the same as the maximum Disability Award payment on the day before coming into force."
So I read that as roughly a 150k kick to the B's taking the lump sum 360k (or whatever it is on April 1 2019) vs 500ish. Why can't a dollar just equal a dollar with these people. So mathematically speaking the lump sum is a good deal if you plan on living 26 years or less. ($1,150 x 12 = $13,800 x 26 = $360k.)
Conservatively, I'd expect a minimum life expectancy rating of 75 years. So from next April that's 32 years, x 13,800 = $441,600 translated to a government discount of $81,600. And if you kick in the year you were actually hurt it gets worse from there. My personal number was 512k after deducting what I already received. This calculation just shows the 1:1 difference.
The main takeaway here is the lump sum is worth 26years. Which you can't beat because they take your life expectancy into account.
Sigh, now I get why guys are frustrated. And why there is next to nothing published explaining the lump sum option.
"Lump sum:
The highest possible lump sum payment of the PSC would be the same as the maximum Disability Award payment on the day before coming into force."
So I read that as roughly a 150k kick to the B's taking the lump sum 360k (or whatever it is on April 1 2019) vs 500ish. Why can't a dollar just equal a dollar with these people. So mathematically speaking the lump sum is a good deal if you plan on living 26 years or less. ($1,150 x 12 = $13,800 x 26 = $360k.)
Conservatively, I'd expect a minimum life expectancy rating of 75 years. So from next April that's 32 years, x 13,800 = $441,600 translated to a government discount of $81,600. And if you kick in the year you were actually hurt it gets worse from there. My personal number was 512k after deducting what I already received. This calculation just shows the 1:1 difference.
The main takeaway here is the lump sum is worth 26years. Which you can't beat because they take your life expectancy into account.
Sigh, now I get why guys are frustrated. And why there is next to nothing published explaining the lump sum option.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
So just to clarify, let's say you're 100%, you're entitled to take the lump sum of 100% as of April 2019? $360,000?
Would that subtract the DA money you've already been paid? i.e. using the example they give their (100% in 2006 = $250,000) would you be paid $110,000 if you elected lump sum? Or is it a simple calculation of, everyone who got 100%, regardless of what thye've been paid already, will get $360,000?
Also, with regards to the lump sum being less money overall, that's true, but don't forget the time value of money. If hypothetically, one took that money and plowed it into an investment that returned 5%/year (which is an entirely reasonable expectation of RoI simply by buying the entire stock market) you'd have about $1.2 million in 25 years.
Would that subtract the DA money you've already been paid? i.e. using the example they give their (100% in 2006 = $250,000) would you be paid $110,000 if you elected lump sum? Or is it a simple calculation of, everyone who got 100%, regardless of what thye've been paid already, will get $360,000?
Also, with regards to the lump sum being less money overall, that's true, but don't forget the time value of money. If hypothetically, one took that money and plowed it into an investment that returned 5%/year (which is an entirely reasonable expectation of RoI simply by buying the entire stock market) you'd have about $1.2 million in 25 years.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
RobA said:
In regards to funds already received, using their own examples if your already received over 300k your still getting funds worth more than 360k IF you take the monthly option. They, do not in ANY examples of those who have previously received settlements even mention lump sums. And VAC will not touch these question with a 30 foot stick right now. Ive tried three times. lol.
I agree with your summation, yes. The lump sum is worth more than 80k in my hands over the next 26 years than it would be to receive it drip by drip.
However, they lie to our faces and It makes me angry because this is business, im a finance guy and its painfully obvious. They describe, if you really search why the discrepancy in funds has much more value in the Monthly option. Their BS justification is that they hope it acts as a incentive for Vets to choose the monthly option as its more secure. BS!!!
And you just spelled it out in your response, its the EXACT opposite, the incentive is always to take the lump sum as long as its relatively close. This is just a way for them to pocket 100k for every full claim payout.
Im a big boy, dont tell me your stealing my lunch money because you want me to lose weight, just kick me in the nuts, take my 20 bucks and say what are you going to do about it. I'll find the exact quote, its disgustingly dishonest.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Quotes and everything!! lol
"Under the New Veterans Charter, disabled veterans could receive a lump-sum payment of up to $360,000 – an amount that is rarely awarded – depending upon the severity of their injury, plus a myriad of other benefits that target specific issues.
Under the new plan, those who retire with a service-related injury will qualify for a life-time tax-free pension for pain and suffering of as much as $1,150 per month. In addition, if they are having difficulty re-establishing their lives because of a severe and permanent injury, they may receive an additional $500, $1,000, or $1,500 a month, depending on the extent of their impairment.
Both of those benefits can be taken as a lump-sum award to a maximum of $360,000. But, if a veteran is severely disabled at a young age and lives into their 80s, the accumulated monthly payments will far outstrip the lump sum.
"We very much want people to take up the monthly option," Mr. O'Regan said. "We wanted to make it lucrative enough that they would want to."
Those veterans who have already received a lump-sum award still qualify for the life-time pension, but the money they have been given will be deducted when the government calculates their monthly payment."
Source;
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-offers-lifetime-pensions-for-veterans-but-parity-with-old-pension-act-not-achieved/article37398444/
"Under the New Veterans Charter, disabled veterans could receive a lump-sum payment of up to $360,000 – an amount that is rarely awarded – depending upon the severity of their injury, plus a myriad of other benefits that target specific issues.
Under the new plan, those who retire with a service-related injury will qualify for a life-time tax-free pension for pain and suffering of as much as $1,150 per month. In addition, if they are having difficulty re-establishing their lives because of a severe and permanent injury, they may receive an additional $500, $1,000, or $1,500 a month, depending on the extent of their impairment.
Both of those benefits can be taken as a lump-sum award to a maximum of $360,000. But, if a veteran is severely disabled at a young age and lives into their 80s, the accumulated monthly payments will far outstrip the lump sum.
"We very much want people to take up the monthly option," Mr. O'Regan said. "We wanted to make it lucrative enough that they would want to."
Those veterans who have already received a lump-sum award still qualify for the life-time pension, but the money they have been given will be deducted when the government calculates their monthly payment."
Source;
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-offers-lifetime-pensions-for-veterans-but-parity-with-old-pension-act-not-achieved/article37398444/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
dunlop303 said:
Yep, couldn't agree more.
IMO, their refusal to address the lump sum question IS an answer. The more I think about it, I'm about 95% sure if we opt for the lump sum, they WILL deduct whatever we've been given already from it.
In the case of the 100% in 2007 example, the vet would have been given $290,000 so far (give or take). That's $250k for the initial DA, and another $40k in April 2017 by the top up to the DA. So this vet if opted for the lump sum would (in my opinion) only get another $70,000. That's not peanuts, but it's a far cry from $360,000 and makes the lifetime pension the preferable option.
Why do I think they'll deduct monies already paid? Because think about it: if the vet above DOES get $360,000, their total payout from VAC would be $650,000. But a vet injured in 2020 would top out at $360,000. I would be shocked if VAC would create such a 2 tier system, considering the main reason they're scrambling to change the NVC is BECAUSE of the complaints that they've already created a 2 tier system.
I'd be shocked if they didn't deduct money already paid out via the DA when factoring the lump sum of the new PFL.
Similar threads
