[Newsbot]

Title: Soldiers squander disability payouts
Category: Military
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2010-06-25 21:27:34
Canadian

[Guy_Fawkes]

Thats what happens when you give someone a windfall. Giving the option of a lump sum or a monthly payout is the best option, they do it for the lottery why not for disability.

[Brenda]

$1:

Canada’s top soldier says he’s concerned some younger vets are blowing their disability awards on trucks and sports cars instead of saving money, and he hopes Veterans Affairs will offers soldiers different payments options if they are wounded.

Ok, I can see that.

$1:

“Some younger veterans took their cash and bought Porsches, boats and souped-up trucks, and now they are broke. ”

And THAT is just non of your business.
If they want to do that, let them. They did their job, you did yours, it's not up to you to decide how they spend their money.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Canada’s top soldier says he’s concerned some younger vets are blowing their disability awards on trucks and sports cars instead of saving money, and he hopes Veterans Affairs will offers soldiers different payments options if they are wounded.

Ok, I can see that.

$1:

“Some younger veterans took their cash and bought Porsches, boats and souped-up trucks, and now they are broke. ”

And THAT is just non of your business.
If they want to do that, let them. They did their job, you did yours, it's not up to you to decide how they spend their money.

That's true, unless they go on some sort of social support after going broke.

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Canada’s top soldier says he’s concerned some younger vets are blowing their disability awards on trucks and sports cars instead of saving money, and he hopes Veterans Affairs will offers soldiers different payments options if they are wounded.

Ok, I can see that.

$1:

“Some younger veterans took their cash and bought Porsches, boats and souped-up trucks, and now they are broke. ”

And THAT is just non of your business.
If they want to do that, let them. They did their job, you did yours, it's not up to you to decide how they spend their money.

That's true, unless they go on some sort of social support after going broke.

Then still, it is non of anyone's business how they spend the money they have a right to. Even social support is a right, you paid into it.

When your million $ business goes broke because you are a lousy bookkeeper, or you blow your millions from the lottery away, you still have a right to welfare.
There is nothing in any contract that says: this has to last you for a lifetime.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

When your million $ business goes broke because you are a lousy bookkeeper, or you blow your millions from the lottery away, you still have a right to welfare.
There is nothing in any contract that says: this has to last you for a lifetime.

Fair enough, tho I wish there were such a contract. But I guess it's the same minefield as setting healthcare coverage only for those who take care of themselves.

I do think disability payments should be spread out tho, as I believe they are if you get injured on any other job. Make it a backup so people have a minimum level of support for the rest of their lives. I guess that would cost way more than what is being paid out now tho.

[Wullu]

There is no option for monthly payments. It used to be that way, then it was changed to a one time, lump sum payout.

[bootlegga]

The thing is that monthly payments are actually worse than a lump sum payment, because inflation eats away at your payout.

If it was possible to get it spread over 10, 15 or even 20 years, by the end of the payout, the purchasing power of the monthly payment would be far lower than it was in the first year it was given, so in a way, it makes more sense to give it as a lump sum.

It's just unfortunate that some buy a Porsche instead of a house, but again, that is their right.

[Freakinoldguy]

Lump sum payments may suck, but then again so do disability pensions. How can you expect someone to live on some of the paltry disability pensions they hand out?

With either system the Vet has the option of retraining and rehabilitation, which DVA expects him to make use of so he can reintegrate into society.

So, neither of these payment options, except in the most extreme cases were ever intended to offer complete support for a Veteran.

If the current vets are blowing their lump sum money on trucks and cars then it's pretty much the same as a vet on a small pension using his gratuity to put a payment down on a new vehicle or buy smokes and booze.

I would have thought that the General would understand the system well enough to realise that neither DVA pensions nor lump sum payments were ever intended to be complete military retirement packages.

[BartSimpson]

Giving a soldier a lump sum of money after a term of service in which he's taught to blow every cent lest he die the next day is not a bright idea. It'd be best to pay them out as an annuity.

[Wullu]

When they were disability pensions, they were always paid out on top of the standard pension and if you were still fit to serve, on top of your pay as you continued to serve.

For example, if you had a knee injury and the system determined that was a $150/month, then you started receiving that $150 even if still serving. Same with hearing loss etc.

Now they just hand you a lump sum payment, since it is much easier and thus cheaper to administer it once, vice every month for decades.

[2Cdo]

bootlegga bootlegga:

The thing is that monthly payments are actually worse than a lump sum payment, because inflation eats away at your payout.

In my case it is completely opposite to what you described. I get about a thousand dollars a month from Veterans Affairs and have been recieving that for almost 8 years. Under the new system I would qualify for under 50,000 lump sum.

The new system was set up to benefit Veterans Affairs and not the soldier.

[coltsrmint2]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The thing is that monthly payments are actually worse than a lump sum payment, because inflation eats away at your payout.

In my case it is completely opposite to what you described. I get about a thousand dollars a month from Veterans Affairs and have been recieving that for almost 8 years. Under the new system I would qualify for under 50,000 lump sum.

The new system was set up to benefit Veterans Affairs and not the soldier.

This is exactly right....How do I give Rep Points because this one is right on. Vet affairs doesn't have a bottomless pit of money and now adays, people are trying for pensions for things that didn't have anything to do with their service.

[ASLplease]

Its none of our business how settlements are squandered.

This is typical Liberal BS where the liberals believe they know how to spend my money better than I do.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Its none of our business how settlements are squandered.

This is typical Liberal BS where the liberals believe they know how to spend my money better than I do.

Liberal BS? Sounds like retarded partisan nonsense to me. It is not the Liberals being concerned it is apparently Gen. Walter Natynczyk, Canada's top soldier being concerned about the welfare of the vets. The only other political figure mentioned is Jean-Pierre Blackburn, a conservative MP.