- Reaction score
- 4,704
- Points
- 1,160
Well their first budget was triple what they said the deficit would be, I think the basic recce was no where close which is why they had to defer.
Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
- Thread starter dogger1936
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,256
- Points
- 1,260
I'd like to think so, too, but I guess there also the possiblity that even the napkin figures scared the bejeezus out of them, too.Brihard said:
- Reaction score
- 4,704
- Points
- 1,160
Considering the relatively minor changes they made cost them $5B. I can see a sum 3-4 times that to return to proper lifetime pensions.
- Reaction score
- 4,256
- Points
- 1,260
And I saw somewhere here on the forums it might be 1/2 of your estimate, so we're talking, say, $7B to $20B -- that's not easy to chisel out of an already-packed spending list, no matter who's in the wheelhouse.PuckChaser said:
- Reaction score
- 6,069
- Points
- 1,160
milnews.ca said:
Stop giving out 'climate change' money to third world governments and dictators. That'll leave more than enough money for veterans.
Let's start taking care of Canadians before we decide to send more money to backwaters that'll just buy landlocked yachts and patio lanterns with it.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
recceguy said:
How did you find out what I want to spend my lifetime pension money on? Patio lanterns are the shit... ;D
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
recceguy said:
BZ, Well Said Recceguy,
As much as we have a duty to support other nations, we need to stop the funding that has gone on for the last decade to some of these Tinpot Leaders, by our previous Regime!!
Again, well said.
- Reaction score
- 4,256
- Points
- 1,260
A start: $2.65B over 5 years = $500M/year (mind you, that to ALL countries getting $, not just the bad boy countries). That leaves another $6.5B - $19.5B/year left to chip away ...recceguy said:
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 130
I find it curious that the government would bring all recipients of Disability Awards from 2006 to current up to the same 2017 fiscal year adjusted dollar value. I am suspicious that there may be another agenda at play and not simple good will or generosity to veteran's. In a previous post I ran a comparison of Pension Act vs. Lump Sum Lifetime Comparison (http://army.ca/forums/threads/121395.0.html) I noted that the significant difference between Pension and DA in my case up to age 80 was over $500,000 dollars. Now this is just my case and I am at the lower end of the cost spectrum as my Pension kicked in my thirties and the DA in my fifties. ( just a note for the Mods the attachments to the post that I referred to have disappeared, is that normal?)
I have heard from a policy analyst that there has been some discussion at DVA about finding a way to cap their liability if they lose the Equitas case. One course of action that is being explored would be using a similar calculation to mine to determine a life time value of a pension and then paying a lump sum equal to 70% or 80% of the value. The concept being that it limits the crown's liabilities and gives them a guaranteed number and also eliminates the 50% lifetime survivors pension. The hope is that while still expensive the number would appear to the public to be large enough to put the government in good graces with the general public and at the same time make veteran's look unappreciative and greedy.
Maybe this is just one of many options/contingencies being explored and I need a little more rum............................But I have my suspicions.!!!
My source has been reliable over the years and has often provided me with accurate info on policy discussions and study papers that are not publicly released but can be found with some digging.
- mod edit to fix formatting -
I have heard from a policy analyst that there has been some discussion at DVA about finding a way to cap their liability if they lose the Equitas case. One course of action that is being explored would be using a similar calculation to mine to determine a life time value of a pension and then paying a lump sum equal to 70% or 80% of the value. The concept being that it limits the crown's liabilities and gives them a guaranteed number and also eliminates the 50% lifetime survivors pension. The hope is that while still expensive the number would appear to the public to be large enough to put the government in good graces with the general public and at the same time make veteran's look unappreciative and greedy.
Maybe this is just one of many options/contingencies being explored and I need a little more rum............................But I have my suspicions.!!!
My source has been reliable over the years and has often provided me with accurate info on policy discussions and study papers that are not publicly released but can be found with some digging.
- mod edit to fix formatting -
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 130
Sorry about the formatting of my last post. I am not sure how to fix it and would appreciate if one of the mods could fix it for me.
Thanks
Thanks
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Interesting. And plausible. I have no doubt if they lose Equitas, they're going to try to limit their exposure. With technology, who knows how long life expectancy will be 30-40-50+ years from now?
A buyout calculated at today's life expectancy and then adjusted to 70% would be expensive, but would save a lot of money in the long run while also being fair to vets (as long as you give them the pension option).
It will be expensive, but OTOH, don't send troops into war you can't pay for. And the lifetime cost of injured soldiers is absolutely included in the total cost of war.
Anybody know when Equitas is set to be decided?
A buyout calculated at today's life expectancy and then adjusted to 70% would be expensive, but would save a lot of money in the long run while also being fair to vets (as long as you give them the pension option).
It will be expensive, but OTOH, don't send troops into war you can't pay for. And the lifetime cost of injured soldiers is absolutely included in the total cost of war.
Anybody know when Equitas is set to be decided?
The issue with deriving it from pensions and then dropping down is that really covers only the economic cost of disability (and fails to account for the lost career growth of someone disabled as a 22 year old Cpl). It does not take into account pain and suffering, which civilian disability awards do look at. They're arguing that an injured soldier should be treated equitably to an injured bank teller or power technician, who would see far more if hurt on the job.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Picking up on Brihard's last point, and I can't recall if someone else touched on this, but...
In most cases, not just the severely disabled veterans, the method of injury which rendered said soldier disabled is a tad different than the typical civilian method of injury.
In most cases, not just the severely disabled veterans, the method of injury which rendered said soldier disabled is a tad different than the typical civilian method of injury.
Similar threads
