• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

VAC Return to Lifetime Pensions Discussion

RobA

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dunlop303 said:
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 anyone has better info

I don't have any better info, and I certainly hope you're right, but barring specific wording from VAC I'm really skeptical that any lump sum would NOT take into account any previous monies paid with regards to the $360,000 max payout.

In my case, I'm 32, and assessed at 100% in 2008, so I've been paid roughly $300k in total. I can't imagine VAC would pay me ANOTHER $360k, bringing me to a total of $660k, when a veteran who gets 100% in, say, 2020 would only be paid $360k.

To be clear, I'm not going off any info whatsoever, and I'm happy to be wrong, but just knowing how VAC works, I'd place it at about 90% chance that they DO deduct monies paid. So, in my case, my lump sum should be roughly $60k, even though I'm assessed at 100%.
 

RobA

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Their case studies don't have anything to say about the lump sum though, other then that it's an option. It doesn't say anything about methodology, or monies deducted etc.

But considering the case studies for the monthly payment DO deduct payments for monies already paid, it stands to reason that the lump sum calculation does too. As well, I recall Seamus O'Reagen saying something like "we want to incentivize vets to take the monthly payment".

In my case, giving me the option to take either $360,000 lump sum or $880/mo is NOT incentivizing me to take the monthly option. On the other hand though, giving me the option of $60,000 lump sump or $880/mo definitely is.
 

Teager

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
What we all should be worried about is the new system they are making for the PFL. Let's all just hope we receive the benefits we're entitled to in April. Don't want another phenoix issue and a bunch of vets go unpaid for x amount of time.

I fear stories of oh sorry the computer must have missed bringing your name over into the new system and we will now have to confirm all benefits that you have. If you have your letters of approval please send them in to assist us in moving this along as quickly as possible. If you don't have them expect to wait 6 months minimum. Thank you for your patience as we work through this.
 

upandatom

Full Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
RobA said:
Their case studies don't have anything to say about the lump sum though, other then that it's an option. It doesn't say anything about methodology, or monies deducted etc.

But considering the case studies for the monthly payment DO deduct payments for monies already paid, it stands to reason that the lump sum calculation does too. As well, I recall Seamus O'Reagen saying something like "we want to incentivize vets to take the monthly payment".

In my case, giving me the option to take either $360,000 lump sum or $880/mo is NOT incentivizing me to take the monthly option. On the other hand though, giving me the option of $60,000 lump sump or $880/mo definitely is.

I would expect something along this line, except maybe not as harsh. Id say they would take at least a 15% cut on it, I am in the same boat, where I was set to 110% in 2016, and expecting possibly 317k, but only $572 a month. To be honest, I would even take the 15% on that.....as opposed to the $572 a month. I can do more with the lump sum then the 572 a month.

 

RobA

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
For sure in that scenario, the lump sum is by far the better option. Thatd be sweet if they only took a small bit of what youve been paid, but Ive never known VAC to work like that. I would bet the $360k is the total LIFETIME a vet would get. So in your case since you got your lump sum relatively recently, youd be prrtty close to that limit.  Dunno what youve been paid out already but lets say its $350,000, Ill bet theyd offer you the monthly $500-$600 OR a "lump sum" option of $10,000.

Cause its the same issue I brought up: if they paid you ANOTHER, say, $300,000 then youre lifetime payout would be $650,000+. Meanwhile, a future vet who gets injured at 100% in 2019 would only get the max $360,000. I cant see VAC doing that. Then theyd just go through this whole mess again with the NEXT generation of vets feeling they get short changed compared to earlier vets. Right now, the issue is is pre 2006 vets on the NVC get a much less valuable compensation package then post 2006 vets. Thats what this whole thing is trying to address. If they paid us out ANOTHER $300,000+, theyd just be creating a third tier: vets pre 2006 get the best deal, vets 2006-2019  get the next best, and vets post 2019 get the worst. Seems likely that a system where a vet who got injured in 2019 @ 100% gets $360,000 lump sum, while a vet injured in 2017 @ 100% walks away with $700,00 would just create MORE problems for VAC of the type this whole thing is trying to solve.

If they were going to give vets at 100% ANOTHER $300,000+ they would raise the new max to $600,000+ and just top everyone up.

Anytime VAC is vague about a specific issue (like theyre being regarding the lump sum. Tons of detail about how the PENSION is calculated but not a peep about the LS) it alnost always being purposefully vague because they trying to frig vets over and want to keep the uproar down.

Just my $0.02, I hope Im wrong. I dont think guys should be mentally spending their $300,000+ checks just yet though, at least until we get something concrete from VAC.
 

Teager

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
I'd say RobA is right. It already states you get the choice of the $360k or the monthly amount for life. I don't see any extra lump sum coming to those who already received one just a possible monthly amount.
 

Howie1

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
10
I'm pretty sure based on the examples on the Vac pages of the different scenario's it already shows people getting way over the 360k amount. From what it looks like they are completely different pots of money and would have to be, otherwise there would be no money left for monthly payments until a person reaches age 83/84. From the way it looks to me and correct me if i am wrong, the 360k was only for the NVC people. Going forward everyone will get the same amounts as anyone who got a lump sum already. They will just get less in the monthly amounts/ lump sum than those injured and getting this benefit going forward. Just their case examples show this to be the case. As far as the lump sum payment option, Their Q+A faq clearly describes the option to take a lump sum.

Taken from the Vac Q+A Page:

PAIN AND SUFFERING COMPENSATION
WHAT IS THE PAIN AND SUFFERING COMPENSATION?
The Pain and Suffering Compensation is designed to recognize and compensate CAF members and Veterans for the pain and suffering they experience due to a disability caused by a service-related illness and/or injury. It is not intended to replace income, which is why the PSC is not taxable.

Based on the member or Veteran's assessed extent of disability, the PSC benefit potentially entitles Veterans up to a maximum of $1,150 a month for life. Veterans and members can also opt to cash out their payments at any time. The intent is to provide the choice of how to receive this benefit, while encouraging recipients to continue the monthly payment.

IF YOU CHOOSE THE MONTHLY PAYMENT OPTION BUT WANT TO TAKE THE MONEY AS A LUMP SUM PAYMENT AT A LATER DATE, ARE YOU ABLE TO?
Yes. You can choose to cash out the benefit and receive the balance owing, which is the difference between the monthly amount already paid and the applicable lump sum amount.

 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
70
Points
530
Long post with examples to illustrate the argument @:

https://army.ca/forums/threads/129243/post-1552404.html#msg1552404

Hopeful formatted the article correctly for readability.


https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/10/25/betrayal-commitment-canadas-veterans-community/172111

OPINION: Feds betraying commitment to veteran community
- By BRIAN N. FORBES - OCT. 25, 2018

The disabled veteran community expected the re-establishment of the Pension for life option would not just attempt to address the concerns of a small minority of disabled veterans, but would include a recognition of all disabled veterans in need of financial security.
 

Quirky

Sr. Member
Reaction score
651
Points
940
disabled veterans in need of financial security.

I’m curious, by comparison, what other government sectors or private companies give out disability payments, whether it be lump sum or monthly, for employees injured on the job?

Just to give an example, an ER nurse gets struck by an idiot patient and can’t work any more. He/she can’t come to work anymore but unlike the military, doesn’t get paid a full salary waiting for medical release or whatnot. Another example, I come to work and permanently injure my wrist/hand and can’t do my job and will ultimately be medically released. This entire process will take months if not years, meanwhile I continue to collect a full salary with benefits until my release date. When I release I get a $X dollar amount with all the perks like paid education.

After all said and done I get a nice dollar payout or monthly payment and paid for schooling. The nurse can’t work anymore and now has an injury limiting further employment elsewhere. Why do I deserve more money and support than they do?
 

Teager

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
Quirky said:
I’m curious, by comparison, what other government sectors or private companies give out disability payments, whether it be lump sum or monthly, for employees injured on the job?

Just to give an example, an ER nurse gets struck by an idiot patient and can’t work any more. He/she can’t come to work anymore but unlike the military, doesn’t get paid a full salary waiting for medical release or whatnot. Another example, I come to work and permanently injure my wrist/hand and can’t do my job and will ultimately be medically released. This entire process will take months if not years, meanwhile I continue to collect a full salary with benefits until my release date. When I release I get a $X dollar amount with all the perks like paid education.

After all said and done I get a nice dollar payout or monthly payment and paid for schooling. The nurse can’t work anymore and now has an injury limiting further employment elsewhere. Why do I deserve more money and support than they do?

http://www.wsib.on.ca/WSIBPortal/faces/WSIBArticlePage?fGUID=835502100635000336&_afrLoop=12950140814000&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dnull%26_afrLoop%3D12950140814000%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26fGUID%3D835502100635000336%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D175az6b0zg_4

That shows how VAC has moved more towards this model. Before VAC bumped up the lump sum they were paying less than what courts awarded those injured at jobs in Canada. VAC bumped it up to the minimum amount courts award.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
283
Points
880
Quirky said:
I’m curious, by comparison, what other government sectors or private companies give out disability payments, whether it be lump sum or monthly, for employees injured on the job?

Just to give an example, an ER nurse gets struck by an idiot patient and can’t work any more. He/she can’t come to work anymore but unlike the military, doesn’t get paid a full salary waiting for medical release or whatnot. Another example, I come to work and permanently injure my wrist/hand and can’t do my job and will ultimately be medically released. This entire process will take months if not years, meanwhile I continue to collect a full salary with benefits until my release date. When I release I get a $X dollar amount with all the perks like paid education.

After all said and done I get a nice dollar payout or monthly payment and paid for schooling. The nurse can’t work anymore and now has an injury limiting further employment elsewhere. Why do I deserve more money and support than they do?

"We are not the public service of Canada. We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people."

General Rick Hillier
 

Quirky

Sr. Member
Reaction score
651
Points
940
Chief Engineer said:
"We are not the public service of Canada. We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people."

General Rick Hillier

Departments responsible for killing people should be better compensated than those, who on a daily basis, save people.
 

Teager

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
Killing people is only one aspect of the CAF. Today the CAF is very diverse and performs many different functions including life savings ones. The majority of those functions come with dangers to your life or serious injury and you can be ordered to do it.

You can refuse unsafe work in most jobs here in Canada no one can order you to do it.
 

RobA

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Howie1 said:
I'm pretty sure based on the examples on the Vac pages of the different scenario's it already shows people getting way over the 360k amount. From what it looks like they are completely different pots of money and would have to be, otherwise there would be no money left for monthly payments until a person reaches age 83/84. From the way it looks to me and correct me if i am wrong, the 360k was only for the NVC people. Going forward everyone will get the same amounts as anyone who got a lump sum already. They will just get less in the monthly amounts/ lump sum than those injured and getting this benefit going forward. Just their case examples show this to be the case. As far as the lump sum payment option, Their Q+A faq clearly describes the option to take a lump sum.

Taken from the Vac Q+A Page:

PAIN AND SUFFERING COMPENSATION
WHAT IS THE PAIN AND SUFFERING COMPENSATION?
The Pain and Suffering Compensation is designed to recognize and compensate CAF members and Veterans for the pain and suffering they experience due to a disability caused by a service-related illness and/or injury. It is not intended to replace income, which is why the PSC is not taxable.

Based on the member or Veteran's assessed extent of disability, the PSC benefit potentially entitles Veterans up to a maximum of $1,150 a month for life. Veterans and members can also opt to cash out their payments at any time. The intent is to provide the choice of how to receive this benefit, while encouraging recipients to continue the monthly payment.

IF YOU CHOOSE THE MONTHLY PAYMENT OPTION BUT WANT TO TAKE THE MONEY AS A LUMP SUM PAYMENT AT A LATER DATE, ARE YOU ABLE TO?
Yes. You can choose to cash out the benefit and receive the balance owing, which is the difference between the monthly amount already paid and the applicable lump sum amount.

I understand all this, but all they say here is that you have the OPTION to take a lump sum, not how much that would be or what the formula is. For my case, I'm at 100% and been paid $300,000 already. So if I opt for the lump sum and only get $60,000 (to bring me to the new max of $360,000) that's still a "lump sum" from VAC's perspective. Of course, from MY perspective, getting $360,000 is a lot different from getting $60,000.

I hear your points, and they have merit,  but the two main things I keep coming back too that I can't get away from are:

1) On the examples they gave for the new PFL formula, they deduct monies ALREADY PAID as a disability award under the NVC. To me, that strongly suggests they will deduct monies already paid under the NVC for the lump sum. Those are two completely different polices (deducting money previously paid vs not deducting it), and it would be unusual to have two different polices for the same benefit. Remember, whether you opt for the pension, or opt for the lump sum, they are both the same benefit:the PSC. I don't think VAC is going to have one policy (deduct NVC money already paid) for one version of the PSC but an entirely different policy (DON'T deduct NVC money already paid) for another version of the same benefit. That's not how VAC works.

2) If you read the article just posted criticizing the new PFL, the main issue is that it perpetuates the unequal benefits of the different system and creates two tiers of vets: those injured pre 2006 and those injured post 2006. If they just started us all with a clean slate and, it would make that dynamic WORSE. There would be huge gaps between the compensation different vets get. In my case, if I opted for the lump sum and that was $360,000, my total compensation would be around $660,000. Meanwhile, a veteran injured in 2019 with the exact same rating (100%) who opted for the lump sum would only get $360,000. That's almost half as much compensation. Not even the existing system (pre 2006 vs post 2006) is THAT inequitable. Considering this whole PFL thing only came about to address existing inequities in the compensation system, it would seem odd to implement a "solution" that makes the system MORE inequitable. I know if I were the vet injured in 2019 and only getting $360k as a lump sum, I'd be pissed if guys like me existed who got the same injury but got paid well over $600,000.

I keep saying this, but I DO hope I'm wrong. It's just that we tend to be predisposed to believe what we WANT top believe, and in this case, I think the case that someone in my position option for the lump sum will be getting around $50-$60,000 to be far stronger then that I would get $360,000, even though I want it to be otherwise.

I think it's important to tamp down expectations because while $60,000 is pretty sweet, it isn't life changing money the way that $360,000 would be, and if guys get carried away and start planning their future based on that, they may be in for a major disappointment.
 

TCM621

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
191
Points
430
RobA said:
2) If you read the article just posted criticizing the new PFL, the main issue is that it perpetuates the unequal benefits of the different system and creates two tiers of vets: those injured pre 2006 and those injured post 2006.

It creates a lot more than 2 tiers. You have vets pre and post 2006. You have vets with a single "severe impairment" and vets with the same level of disability who have multiple claims. You have uninjured vets who retire willingly who get all their new salary and their pension and you have injuries vets who can't work, who get their pension deducted from their benefits.

The single biggest complaint I can see is that they have created a convoluted system which virtually guarantees that vets will get less than they are entitled to simply because they don't know what they are entitled to. In my experience, the front line VAC staff doesn't understand it either so they can't help vets.
 

dunlop303

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Here, this should settle your collective anxiety. I know, I feel the same way in waiting to get blind sided but aside from the fact they don't talk about the lump sums, I have confi they can both be taken as a lump sum. I've attached one of their case studies, of course it's monthly payment based, but it explains the totals, she was Injured and rated at 100 percent for injuries received on training op nanook, this was in 2014. So you know she's already gotten a lump sum ie, her 100 percent rating.

Now, looking on the left side of the page I attached it shows you these ARE individual and seperate, let's call them accounts. Her monthly payment for pain and suffering will be $1,110, VAC assess her life expectancy to be 82, being 25 it's valued at 689,600 over her lifetime. Or, she can take 360k lump sum.
She will also receive as you can see, grade 2 additional pain and suffering compensation lifetime valued at 599,600. Or 360k. Many of us have confirmed this benefit is also available in lump sum, although most of us are rated at grade 1, ie, 609 a month currently going down to 500 non taxable when this all kicks in, so simple 50% ish deduction plus age difference means most will not get the full 360 for additional pain rather something in the mid to high one hundred thousand range.

The case studies are the easiest way to understand that just because we received our "pension" these new benefits are just that, new, and seperate.

The whole purpose is financial security for life. This is huge guys.
 

dunlop303

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My attachment didn't show up, but for here scroll down and click on Lauren's well being journey it's a PDF W
 

dunlop303

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sorry , it's a PDF with. All the financial details http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/pension-for-life
 

RobA

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dunlop303 said:
Here, this should settle your collective anxiety. I know, I feel the same way in waiting to get blind sided but aside from the fact they don't talk about the lump sums, I have confi they can both be taken as a lump sum. I've attached one of their case studies, of course it's monthly payment based, but it explains the totals, she was Injured and rated at 100 percent for injuries received on training op nanook, this was in 2014. So you know she's already gotten a lump sum ie, her 100 percent rating.

Now, looking on the left side of the page I attached it shows you these ARE individual and seperate, let's call them accounts. Her monthly payment for pain and suffering will be $1,110, VAC assess her life expectancy to be 82, being 25 it's valued at 689,600 over her lifetime. Or, she can take 360k lump sum.
She will also receive as you can see, grade 2 additional pain and suffering compensation lifetime valued at 599,600. Or 360k. Many of us have confirmed this benefit is also available in lump sum, although most of us are rated at grade 1, ie, 609 a month currently going down to 500 non taxable when this all kicks in, so simple 50% ish deduction plus age difference means most will not get the full 360 for additional pain rather something in the mid to high one hundred thousand range.

The case studies are the easiest way to understand that just because we received our "pension" these new benefits are just that, new, and seperate.

The whole purpose is financial security for life. This is huge guys.

Thanks for that. Color me skeptical still, but that does provide a strong argument. It DOES seem incomprehensible that they would offer the choice between two pensions totalling over $1 million lifetime value and....$60,000 (in my case).

In fact, if they offer two lump sums for each (totally $770,000 max) they probably still WOULD reduce by the amounts already paid, and we'll still do well. In my case, even if they subtracted the $300k they've already paid me, I culd still be looking at north of $450,000. I'd be ok with that.
 
Top