The disability award "top up".....not until 2017?

[jollyjacktar]

Sounds like more Liberal lies, as usual.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This is really the best they could do?  :facepalm:

 

[Teager]

The Liberal government refuses amendments to the budget to protect benefits and improve services for wounded veterans

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 1, 2016

Ottawa (Ontario) - Yesterday, the Conservative members on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, Alupa Clarke, Cathay Wagantall and Robert Kitchen, submitted three amendments to Bill C-15, the Implementation Act, the Liberal government's budget, which is currently being studied by the Finance Committee. These changes would improve service delivery to injured veterans and protect the monthly payments of the allowance for loss of earnings against the planned reduction by the Liberal government.
Unfortunately, the Liberals Committee members voted unanimously against the proposed changes to protect the Allowance for loss of income, even if the reduction of the minimum threshold in the pay of a senior soldier instead of that of a basic Corporal result in lower benefits received by the most vulnerable injured veterans.
In addition, the Liberal chair of the Committee used procedural tactics to ensure that the vote on the two amendments does not take place. These amendments would have allowed the Department of Veterans Affairs to meet with wounded veterans at home and would have ensured that the Department of National Defence is working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that injured military assistance to navigate the complex administrative process to receive their benefits.
Addressing the Finance Committee yesterday, Cathay Wagantall member said: "The budget does not address the procedural problems which mean that the most vulnerable veterans, men and women who suffer from serious physical and mental illness , may not receive the support they deserve in a reasonable time. "
After the rejection of the amendments, the Wagantall MP added: "During the campaign, the Liberals promised to continue to improve services for wounded veterans and protect their benefits. Our amendments were based on the testimony of veterans and were a positive step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has chosen to vote against one of them and has used procedural tactics to block the other two.

https://fr-ca.facebook.com/AlupaClarke/posts/1430050133687603

 

[Fishbone Jones]

VAC can already meet you at home. It's up to the Vet if they want to or not.

 

[Teager]

VAC can already meet you at home. It's up to the Vet if they want to or not.

Perhaps they mean those without a case manager?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Perhaps they mean those without a case manager?

Anything is possible. Nobody is ever 100% sure what a politician means when they open their mouths.

 

[RobA]

I am very confused by all this. So taking myself as an example I released in 2014 and my ELB will be calculated at the Cpl 0 rank which is $56k so 90% of that is about $50k. So a Cpl from 10 or 20 years ago who probably made less than the $49k will be demoted to Snr Pte while a Cpl like myself won't get pushed down? I don't see how this even comes close to any logical sense. Creating another class of veterans again.

No. Everyone gets the same COLA increases given to serving soldiers. I got out a a Cpl 3 in 2008, and my ELB today is calculated using Cpl 3 salary today.

When they say "70% of your retirement salary" they don't mean the dollar amount of when you got out. They mean your retirement rank.

 

[RobA]

No. Everyone gets the same COLA increases given to serving soldiers. I got out a a Cpl 3 in 2008, and my ELB today is calculated using Cpl 3 salary today.

When they say "70% of your retirement salary" they don't mean the dollar amount of when you got out. They mean your retirement rank.

As I understand it, the previous minimum threshold was a Cpl 2 (I believe). So even if you never got Cpl 2, your ELB is still based on Cpl 2 salary. The new min threshold is Pte 3. So if you were a Pte when released, your old ELB was based on Cpl 2 pay. Now it'll be based on Pte 3.

Anybody over the rank of Pte won't really be affected by this. What is the number of pensioned vets who never made it to Cpl? Probably not that high. That said, they should just keep the threshold where it is. Even a few vets through the cracks is too many. I dont see this as the hill to die on though.

 

[RobA]

The Liberals say the minimum payments will be based on the current salary of a senior private, even if the disabled soldier left the military at a higher rank.

Is there a source for this? That seems absurd, and reads like it came from one of those goofy anti Liberal memes you see on FB.

The point of a "minimum threshold" is that if you come in UNDER the threshold, they bump you up, but if you are OVER it, there's no change. That's been the definition of "minimum threshold" in pretty much every context the term is ever used.

I'm not sure why it would change now.

If a Cpl 3 gets dragged down to Pte 3, then Pte 3 is the MAXIMUM threshold, not the minimum, which is basically the exact opposite of the wording used in the bill.

 

[blackberet17]

No one is being "demoted". VAC can't take away the rank you held when you released. That's just stupid spin by Mr. Bruyea and the journalist, FFS.

If/when the bill passes, the minimum any person receiving ELB will be 90% of a Snr Pte. This does not mean a Snr Cpl receiving ELB will be bumped down or demoted to a Pte. It means the MINIMUM he is GUARANTEED to receive is whatever the math works out to.

While it is not a substantial increase for some/many, it is still a minimum guaranteed income, which in itself has been raised. As described earlier in this post:

If passed, the Earning Loss Benefit will increase from 75% to 90% of a Veteran’s monthly military salary, or of the salary of a senior private, whichever is greater, and the 2% cap will be removed, so the enhanced benefit will keep pace with inflation.

In the interest of fairness, the increase is based on a Senior Private’s salary. To do otherwise would mean that some Veterans receiving the benefit could be making more than their comrades on active duty.

If/when the bill is passed, and the policies are pushed out, I'll see what I can get to share here.

 

[blackberet17]

From the Minister, extract from a larger press release:

No Veteran will be, or has been demoted to a rank below the one held when he or she left the military. In some cases, they will receive more than 90% of their pre-release salary. Changes in Budget 2016 mean the minimum Earnings Loss Benefit payable will be $44,496 per year. Veterans will get 90% of their pre-release salary, or the minimum, whichever is greater.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/kent-hehr/earnings-loss-benefit-allocation-pour-perte-de-revenus/979551942152884

 

[blackberet17]

Moderators, maybe we should split the derail of the DA "top up" into an ELB discussion, and move the latter into the original ELB discussion?

 

[Teager]

Liberals explain disparity in Earnings Loss Benefit for disabled veterans

GLORIA GALLOWAY
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jun. 02, 2016 9:10PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Jun. 02, 2016 9:10PM EDT

Veterans Affairs says a hike to an income-replacement benefit for permanently disabled veterans was never intended to be applied equally across the board, and even if those at higher ranks will get a higher percentage increase, those who are paid the least will still be above the poverty line.

“When you map it out, each veteran’s circumstances are different, for sure. And the net effect may well be different for individuals,” a senior official at the Veterans Affairs told reporters at a technical briefing on Thursday. “But it was never the intention to say that everybody should receive the same increase.”

To treat all disabled veterans equally under the Earnings Loss Benefit, regardless of how long ago they retired and at what salary, would be “very challenging,” said the official who spoke on condition that his name not be used.

After years of lobbying by veterans’ advocates, the Liberal government moved in the March budget to improve the benefit, which is intended to replace the income of disabled soldiers as they go through rehabilitation, as well as those who are “totally and permanently incapacitated” and can no longer work. Starting in October, the benefit will increase to 90 per cent of a veteran’s pre-release salary from 75 per cent.

But because the government has also decided to set the minimum amount paid under the benefit at the salary of a senior private, which is a drop from the rank of basic corporal, where it has been set for the past five years, those veterans who make the least will get an increase of about 4 per cent, while those who make more will get an extra 20 per cent. That means former high-ranking officers could get tens of thousands of additional dollars each year, while veterans at the low end who are earning just over $42,000 will see an extra $2,070.

Those who stand to gain the least are mainly former soldiers who served in places such as Somalia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia and Rwanda and were discharged before significant increases to military pay were approved in the late 1990s and over the past decade.

The Conservative government recognized in 2011 that many veterans were not making enough under the Earnings Loss Benefit to put food on their tables, and set the base rate at 75 per cent of what then was being made by a basic corporal, which was about $40,000.

But when the Liberal government decided to set the benefit at 90 per cent of a veteran’s prerelease salary, the Veterans’ Affairs department determined that base could be lowered to the rank of private and all disabled veterans would still be above the low-income cutoff line, the official said.

“It actually meant that everybody, regardless of where you are in the continuum, would be brought up to a level sufficiently above the low-income measure that it was no longer required to use that arbitrary basic corporal level to calculate the basic percentage,” he explained.

The Conservatives and the New Democrats have been challenging the government about the decision this week during the daily Question Periodin the House of Commons.

On Thursday, Alupa Clarke, the Veterans Affairs critic for the Conservatives, asked Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr to explain why he is “putting veterans at risk.”

The minister replied that veterans have been asking for the Earnings Loss Benefit to be increased from 75 per cent to 90 per cent of a pre-release salary for a decade. “We moved on it and we delivered on it, increasing financial security for those veterans who are most disabled and those veterans who have served our armed forces with great honour and great dignity,” he said. “We are there for them.”

The government said in a news release last month that dropping the base rate for the Earnings Loss Benefit to the salary of a senior private was done in the interest of “fairness.” To do otherwise, the government explained, would mean that some veterans receiving the benefit could make more than their comrades on active duty.

When asked why it is important that disabled veterans receive less than soldiers who are still in the military, the Veterans’ Affairs official explained that the New Veterans Charter, which was enacted in 2006 and which incorporated the Earnings Loss Benefit, was aimed at getting disabled veterans rehabilitated and back to work.

“If the consequence is that you end up paying more to an individual in rehab than those still serving, then I guess there’s a question about whether or not that would achieve the objectives of the wellness model,” he said.

Getting back to work does not apply to the roughly 2,293 veterans who are receiving the Earnings Loss Benefit because they are permanently disabled. The Veterans Affairs official said those who will not recover from their injuries are eligible for other benefits – although he acknowledged that those other benefits can also be accessed by the higher-ranking veterans who will get the largest raises under the Earnings Loss Benefit.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/disparity-in-earnings-loss-benefit-for-disabled-veterans-explained/article30256008/

 

[BinRat55]

Anyone get a "surprise Christmas deposit" yet? In terms of the DA retro-top-up that is...

 

[Teager]

Anyone get a "surprise Christmas deposit" yet? In terms of the DA retro-top-up that is...

Doesn't take effect until April 1 2017.

 

[RobA]

Speaking of, has anyone got clarification for how much we get yet? I.e. is the top up including all the COLA increases?

From everything I'm reading in the laughably miniscule amount of info out there, the maximum payout should be around $50,000 (if you're at 100%).

Anybody have anything that suggests otherwise?

 

[PuckChaser]

That's the way it seems. Regardless of the year of your award(s), it will get topped up to % of $360K as if the max amount of those years was that $360K.

 

[BinRat55]

I understand it this way:

2008 - Awarded 68,000 @ 25% (Based on 275,000)
2016 - Awarded 74,000 @ 25% (Based on 310,000)

Retro should be:

2008 - 360,000 * 25% = 90,000 (90,000 - 68,000 = 22,000)
2016 - 360,000 * 25% = 90,000 (90,000 - 74,000 = 16,000)

22,000 + 16,000 = 38,000

Ish...

 

[PuckChaser]

That's how I've read it as well.

I have 2x 5% awards, a couple years apart. I'll get topped up to $36K total award, which means a cheque for about $7K.

When those cheques arrive though, you'd have better results trying to predict the end of the world.

 

[BinRat55]

When those cheques arrive though, you'd have better results trying to predict the end of the world.

Or WHEN the Leafs will win the cup...  :cold: