VAC Return to Lifetime Pensions Discussion

[TCM621]

One of the biggest issues I have with the NVC is that the myriad of benefits is confusing. one vet may get one set of benefits while another gets a different set for a similar injury and it is hard to figure out why. The old system was simple X percent disability gets Y monthly pension.

Now all this talk about the new pension for life is confusing me even more. No one has any information and if the ETB is any indication no one will have any idea when it is implemented either.

 

[upandatom]

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/

It's a cop out.
If someone takes a monthly, more money in their pocket.
If someone takes the full lump sum. Then that's huge. For me it's 300 and change (110%, and I get CIA) I work, I have to. I have twins. And a mortgage. And life. I'd take the lump sum in a second and invest into my house(mortgage and Reno's) and retirement. Id put a chunk into a retirement package and build interest off it and pay myself.

It should be clear but, I'm 35, worked it out to 300000k and change for the lump sum, or 572 a month. 572 would help, but not benefit my life at all.

The 300000, would be a life saver. Retirement would be a non issue, house would be mortgage free. That benefits me more. Then I wouldn't have to work 50 plus hours a week,  I'd be able to seek actual help. I don't get time off for my medical appts so I can't make most of them.


I'm certain it will come to numbers. How many are in the same boat as me? Some people I know will get $36 a month, barely a case of beer. Will they be paid out? If they get full lump sum why can't I?

It builds a new two tier system again.

 

[meni0n]

So didn't the excel spreadsheet someone posted earlier address the deduction of funds already paid out? VAC life expectancy for a veteran is 72 years old. Given that i will be due 100$ a month for the next 36 years, I'd rather take that as a lump sum

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk

 

[upandatom]

So didn't the excel spreadsheet someone posted earlier address the deduction of funds already paid out? VAC life expectancy for a veteran is 72 years old. Given that i will be due 100$ a month for the next 36 years, I'd rather take that as a lump sum

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk

Exactly, what did the lump sum workout too? 43000?
To be honest, Id even take a 10% hit on it to get paid out the $330 000 then receive the monthly.

 

[meni0n]

Yea It was about 43000$. It makes no sense in taking 100$ a month.

 

[upandatom]

Yea It was about 43000$. It makes no sense in taking 100$ a month.

No. You could make 25 a month off interest

 

[dunlop303]

The spreadsheet was incorrect, it assumed the monthly amounts were equal to the lump sum payments. It is correct for the month calculations. You will not be penalized for your previous lump sum if you in your 30's because it is calculated over years remaining In Your life. However if you lump sumed at 45-55 yes you will take a hit. As I wrote above, you need to have more than 26 years remaining in life expectancy to get a decent lump sum. But one thing I did miss, and this is a plus. We are also entitled to take the additional pain and suffering compensation as a lump sum, with is also worth 360k. I'm going to call.my newly assigned CM and see if I can't squeeze a straight answer out of these people.

 

[bdcasey916]

Where are you seeing the reference material for the APSC being a lump sum? The info sheet on their website states that it is payable monthly over a lifetime.  There must be something in the bill that I can't find.  Thanks!

 

[Teager]

I think it would be best to cite sources when talking about possibly getting large sums of money. If it's not true then it just spreads misinformation among the veteran community. It can spread fast and then when things take effect you get a bunch of pissed off vets thinking they were gonna get a chunk of change when in fact that was never the case.

 

[bdcasey916]

Makes total sense.  After I did my last post I looked at the news article posted above me.  The minister does make the statement that 'both' PSC and APSC have the potential to be paid as a lump sum.  However, when you read VAC's infographics and read through Bill C-74, it only makes reference to the PSC being a lump sum.  So there is either something the minister is not telling us, or he doesn't have his fuzzy ducks in a row

 

[meni0n]

I think it would be best to cite sources when talking about possibly getting large sums of money. If it's not true then it just spreads misinformation among the veteran community. It can spread fast and then when things take effect you get a bunch of pissed off vets thinking they were gonna get a chunk of change when in fact that was never the case.

Well i asked using myvac if it would be possible to take the new monthly payments as a lump sum and the answer was yes, although it is not the first time I was given wrong information. Also, can someone explain what types of impairement would qualify for APSC. Let's say I'm unable to do any PT except light walking, does that fall under APSC.. Can't get any information about this anywhere.

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk

 

[Teager]

Well i asked using myvac if it would be possible to take the new monthly payments as a lump sum and the answer was yes, although it is not the first time I was given wrong information. Also, can someone explain what types of impairement would qualify for APSC. Let's say I'm unable to do any PT except light walking, does that fall under APSC.. Can't get any information about this anywhere.

The only concern I have is that the VAC employee misunderstood that your a vet who already received a lump sum and was referring to any new claims going forward April 1.

APSC will have the same criteria as the CIA minus the time served part come April.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/2126

 

[Rifleman62]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-no-apology-from-veterans-minister-for-attacking-vet-who-library-of/

Library of Parliament analysis sides with veteran in pension spat with Veterans Minister Seamus O’Regan - 27 Sep 18 - GLORIA GALLOWAY G & M

A Library of Parliament analysis has found that veterans' advocate Sean Bruyea is correct in saying disabled vets who qualify for the government’s new pension program will get less compensation than those who fall under the old Pension Act, despite Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O’Regan’s angry rebuttal to the contrary. Conservatives are demanding that Mr. O’Regan apologize for going on the offensive in print and in court after Mr. Bruyea disparaged the Liberals’ planned Pensions for Life program in an Ottawa newspaper in early February.

Mr. Bruyea argued that the new Pensions For Life, which take effect next year and will go to veterans who applied for benefits in 2006 or later, will fall short of what is given to veterans such as him, who applied before 2006 and fall under the old Pension Act. Even though VAC bureaucrats told Mr. O’Regan’s office that Mr. Bruyea’s numbers were largely correct, the Minister fired back two weeks later with a column of his own accusing Mr. Bruyea of “stating mistruths,” making “numerous other errors” and writing to suit his “own agenda.”

Conservative MP Erin O’Toole, a former veterans affairs minister, told Mr. O’Regan during the daily Question Period in the House of Commons on Thursday that during his time in government, he did not always agree with Mr. Bruyea but he always showed him respect “and I always knew that he knew his stuff.” Mr. O’Toole said Mr. O’Regan must apologize for attacking Mr. Bruyea in public and for sending two government lawyers and an intern to fight the disabled veteran in small-claims court when he launched a suit – subsequently dismissed by a judge – that accused the Minister of defaming him. But Mr. O’Regan did not apologize.

“Ensuring that veterans and their families know about the benefits and programs available to them is essential to my job as Minister of Veterans Affairs,” he told the Commons. “It’s why we are working so hard to explain Pensions for Life as clearly as we can.” When the Library of Parliament was asked earlier this year by Independent Liberal Senator Percy Downe to compare the benefits that will be received by newer veterans under the Pensions for Life with those of the Pension Act veterans, the Library found that Mr. Bruyea’s facts were accurate and his argument was legitimate.

The Library analyzed an example provided on the Veterans Affairs website of a corporal named Lauren, who was medically released at the age of 25 after being declared 100 per cent disabled and who is projected to die at the age of 83. It found that if Lauren applied for benefits in 2006 or later, she would receive a lifetime payout under the Pensions for Life of $4,714,554.43. But she would receive $6,264,625.99 if she had applied before 2006 and fell under the old Pension Act.

The Minister’s office said Thursday that the methodology and scenarios used by the Library of Parliament are different than what was presented online by the Veterans Affairs department, which could lead to different outcomes, and that all of department’s assumptions and calculations were accurate.

In his column responding to Mr. Bruyea, the Minister criticized him for not taking into account the Income Replacement Benefit (IRB), which will pay 90 per cent of the prerelease salaries of veterans who are unable to work as a result of service-related injuries, when he calculated how much disabled veterans would receive under the new Pensions for Life. Mr. Bruyea said he specifically excluded the IRB in his calculation because they are available at the same rates to all disabled veterans, even those like him who fall under the old Pension Act. What is different about the old plan and the new one, he said, is that Pension Act veterans will receive significantly more money for pain and suffering. The Library of Parliament analysis agrees with Mr. Bruyea.

When Mr. Bruyea took the matter to small-claims court in May seeking $25,000 for the damages he said the Minister’s rebuttal did to his reputation, government lawyers convinced a judge to throw out the case on the basis of Ontario’s Protection of Public Participation Act. The act is an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) law created to discourage the use of litigation to stifle debate in the public interest. Mr. Bruyea plans to appeal.

 

[Rifleman62]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-veterans-association-calls-pension-for-life-program-a-betrayal-of/

Veterans association calls Pension for Life program a ‘betrayal’ of community - 1 Oct 18

The umbrella organization for Canada’s veterans groups maintains former military personnel are angry that the federal government’s new lifetime pensions will not meet what they thought was a Liberal campaign promise to bring compensation for Canada’s newer disabled vets in line with what is paid to those who claimed benefits before 2006.

Brian Forbes, the chair of the National Council of Veteran Associations, has conducted an analysis of the Liberal government’s proposed Pension for Life program, which will be available starting next year to veterans who applied for benefits in 2006 or later. The report of that assessment will be released at a veterans' summit in late October. It concurs with the findings of veterans’ advocate Sean Bruyea, who says disabled veterans, such as him, who applied for benefits prior to 2006 and fall under the old Pension Act will get more than those who qualify for the Pension for Life. Mr. Forbes calls the new program a “betrayal of the commitment to Canada’s veterans’ community.”

Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O’Regan has held more than 40 town halls with veterans to extol the merits of the proposed pension plan. He also engaged in a public fight, both in print and in the court, with Mr. Bruyea after Mr. Bruyea wrote a column in the Hill Times, an Ottawa newspaper, in February that disparaged the new program. The minister “has been touring the country trying to market his Pension for Life concept and it’s caused a great deal of anger in many circles of the veterans community because he’s trying to sell something that is not truly correct,” Mr. Forbes said in a telephone interview last week. “And what it comes down to is the government is going to try to suggest to veterans at the summit coming up that they have somehow satisfied an election commitment of 2015, and we just don’t agree.” In advance of the last federal election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised that, if the Liberals won, the lifetime pensions for disabled vets, which disappeared in 2006 when the New Veterans Charter became law, would be re-established.

Mr. Forbes says in his analysis that “it was clearly understood that this commitment would specifically address the basic discrimination” that exists between what is provided under the Pension Act and what will be provided under the program that replaced it. John Embury, a spokesman for the minister, said Friday that the objective of the new plan is to move away from the Pension Act in which “the government cuts you a cheque and says good luck. There were shortcomings in what was offered under the Pension Act that our new programs and supports have addressed.” The new plan offers better career transition assistance, better education and training, and increased investments in veterans' mental health, Mr. Embury said.

But Mr. Forbes says in his analysis that “financial security remains a fundamental necessity to the successful implementation of any wellness or rehabilitation strategy.” He looked at two scenarios, one in which a veteran suffers a severe and permanent impairment, and one in which he or she is moderately impaired. In the case of the severe impairment, he says, a veteran who qualified for the Pension for Life will get $3,650 a month, but the Pension Act veteran who has no spouse or children will get $6,118 a month. And those Pension Act vets who are married and have kids will get even more. In the case of a veteran who is determined to be just 35-per-cent disabled, according to the Forbes analysis, the Pension for Life veteran will get $402.50 monthly, while the single Pension Act vet will get $977.20.

Opposition members stood in the House of Commons on Thursday and Friday last week to demand Mr. O’Regan apologize for his treatment of Mr. Bruyea. Even though the Veterans Affairs Department said the numbers used by the veterans' advocate in his February column were largely correct, the minister fired back with a column of his own accusing Mr. Bruyea of “stating mistruths” and writing to suit his “own agenda.” Mr. Bruyea took the matter to small-claims court in May seeking $25,000 for the damages, he said the minister’s rebuttal did to his reputation, government lawyers persuaded a judge to throw out the case on the basis of Ontario’s Protection of Public Participation Act. The act is an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) law created to discourage the use of litigation to stifle debate in the public interest. Mr. Bruyea plans to appeal.

 

[CampCricket]

I'm not sure what to do. I was just awarded another 5% today. Over the last 12 years I received multiple awards. I received 5% in 2007 for an injury, I got hurt in AFG in 2010 and led to an award of another 30% in 2014 and another 60% in 2015. Today I received a letter for a reassessment awarding me another 5%. I am now at 100% as of today... My dilemma is - how do I accept this award? I am 47 years old - do I continue to lump sum it - or do I put it on small payouts so that in April of next year - it can get rolled into pension for life?

From what I can tell - I might get an extra $320 or so each month for life starting April 2019 for my previous awards (based on amount received and when received - and the difference between those 2 had the amount been provided over those years in a pension for life calculation)... But I am only guessing... That would be the case. So should I opt for a smaller amount now - in the hopes that I live another 26 plus years? That puts me at 73 with the average veteran death age of 74 and for a female - the average life expectancy is 84?

I just have no clue right now on how to fill out that financial worksheet... Like to hear other people's thoughts on this.

 

[dunlop303]

As long as VAC determines your remaining life expectancy to be 26;years or greater your choice on how to receive this 5 percent will not effect how you qualify for the post April 2019 benefits. You will be able to choose between lump sum or monthly payments

 

[Fishbone Jones]

They had everything for my reassessment end Feb 18, I'm 32 weeks into a 16 week turnaround. I think they're waiting for me to die. :waiting:

 

[blacktriangle]

They are waiting for us ALL to die.

:nod:

 

[dunlop303]

Well atleast they don't save any dimes as we sequentially off our selves. Goes to the families.

 

[dunlop303]

Also, guys don't spazz, of course we are entitled to our lump sums, read their own case studies. It's elementary. But, 100 percent paid does not equal according to pain and suffering, that's where adjudication comes in..

All in saying is, if you have exactly 26 years left to live and you happen to get a full pay rate. It's the only fair shake.

Please correct me if anyon e has better info