# "Conservatives to overhaul veterans' benefits .... to placate angry ex-soldiers"



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2014)

This, from The Canadian Press:


> The Harper government plans further changes to its oft-maligned veterans charter, hoping to take the political sting out of complaints by ex-soldiers threatening to campaign against them in the next election.
> 
> Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino tabled the government's response to a House of Commons committee review, which earlier this year recommended 14 specific changes to the support and benefits regime.
> 
> ...


----------



## prairefire (2 Oct 2014)

This sounds a lot like political stick handling to me. No cost changes before the election, some vague promise of a $70K top up, and a top up to what? For the most seriously injured only............... it will help but it is not really the answer. If you have received a lump sum amount is the $70K going to be prorated according to your per centage or is it $70K for each 10%.

This all seems like a not very well thought out solution to a "politically embarrassing problem."


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2014)

prairefire said:
			
		

> This all seems like a not very well thought out solution to a "politically embarrassing problem."


In politics, "action" doesn't always equal "solution".


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Oct 2014)

prairefire said:
			
		

> This all seems like a not very well thought out solution to a "politically embarrassing problem."



But to the lay-person, we're all getting a $70k cheque and the issue is solved. Its not about whats right, its about having the right optics, and I fear they're going to accomplish that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2014)

If you're interested in the REST of the story, here's a link to the original report & recommendations (62 page PDF, June 2014), and the government's response (25 page PDF, October 2014) that the original CP story is based on.


----------



## stokerwes (5 Oct 2014)

Where i either report is this 70k top up mentioned?
I am glad that it looks like there may be some positive chages coming soon.
I just hope that the due diligence the Gov. has to go throuh to apply some of thes changes desn't take another six years.
I'll remain hopeful and  positive that good things will happen quickly.


----------



## maniac (7 Oct 2014)

"Committee Recommendation 4

That the earnings loss benefit be non-taxable and set at 85% of net income, up to a net income threshold of $70,000, that it be adjusted annually to the consumer price index, and that for veterans who participate in a rehabilitation program, the disability award be paid once the program is completed.

Government Response 4

Under current programming, the Earnings Loss (EL) is a taxable benefit designed to provide income replacement during participation in VAC’s Rehabilitation Program. It is currently paid at 75% of gross pre-release income which is equivalent to 90% of take home pay. Should the Committee’s recommendation be implemented, which would see EL at 85% of net pre-release income and non taxable, there is a potential for some Veterans to receive a lower benefit than is currently the case. Significant analysis and consultation would be required with the Canada Revenue Agency to establish an appropriate definition of ‘net income’ and further analysis would be needed to compare it to other similar support programs. As such, further due diligence is required to address this proposal."


The gov't response in reference to net income is not relevant if it was inplimented as non taxable.  How, if it is non taxable could a VAC client recieve less? Read between the lines, this one isn't going to happen.


----------



## maniac (7 Oct 2014)

Significant analysis and consultation would be required with the Canada Revenue Agency to establish an appropriate definition of ‘net income’ and further analysis would be needed to compare it to other similar support programs. As such, further due diligence is required to address this proposal.


I don't know,  CRA (the gov't) has an approrpriate definition of net income on my tax returns, just saying they use it there.


----------



## Words_Twice (6 Nov 2014)

Is this $70,000 "top up" payment going to made on a go forward basis for new claims, or for troops who has received the lump sum going to get it as well?  I appreciate that this whole proposal is in its infancy, nothing more than a rumour with a bit of meat on it, but I could not find anything in my surfing that would indicate who exactly is going to get it. I am currently at 126%, so it would be cool to know! Thanks all!


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2014)

Words_Twice said:
			
		

> Is this $70,000 "top up" payment going to made on a go forward basis for new claims, or for troops who has received the lump sum going to get it as well?  I appreciate that this whole proposal is in its infancy, nothing more than a rumour with a bit of meat on it, but I could not find anything in my surfing that would indicate who exactly is going to get it. I am currently at 126%, so it would be cool to know! Thanks all!


Sounds like it's still being worked on, hence the wording in yellow ....


			
				maniac said:
			
		

> "Committee Recommendation 4
> 
> That the earnings loss benefit be non-taxable and set at 85% of net income, up to a net income threshold of $70,000, that it be adjusted annually to the consumer price index, and that for veterans who participate in a rehabilitation program, the disability award be paid once the program is completed.
> 
> ...


----------



## schart28 (11 Apr 2015)

This top up is only for severely injured Vets with specific criteria's. What we know as of now, it applies to only 200 Vets.


----------



## McG (11 Apr 2015)

Are those not the guys who needed this change?


----------



## RobA (11 Apr 2015)

It's pretty specifically worded. It's for vets who have a sudden injury. So things like a bad knee after a career of humping or PTSD don't qualify.


----------

