I won’t go back to the Pension Act of 1919

Go down

I won’t go back to the Pension Act of 1919

Post by Trooper on Wed 10 Jan 2018, 8:26 am

Veterans Affairs minister responds to pension change critics

'I won’t go back to the Pension Act of 1919,' says federal minister Seamus O'Regan

CBC News --- Posted: Jan 09, 2018


Minister of Veterans Affairs Seamus O'Regan announces changes to veterans pensions during a news conference.

Veteran Affairs Minister Seamus O`Regan is in British Columbia this week to talk about the pension plan changes for veterans announced last month.

The federal government promised in the 2015 election to reinstate lifetime pensions for injured veterans.

Those were abolished in 2006 and replaced by lump-sum payments.

Under changes announced last month, former soldiers can still choose to receive a lump sum of up to $360,000 or they can choose to receive a lifetime pension instead of up to $1,150 a month.

The most severely disabled veterans can also get an additional monthly allowance of up to $1,500.

In an interview with On the Island guest host Khalil Akhtar, O'Regan responded to criticism of the new plan.

What's your response to the National Council of Veterans Associations' criticism the monthly pension for veterans remain lower than in 2006?

The maximum monthly payment will indeed be slightly increased for those people with a 100 per cent disability.

We'd heard from veterans organizations that said, and that still say to me as I go around talking to people about this new pension-for-life proposal, that it was never really about the money, it was about the services.

"Now, we have all these services in place. The lump sum, though, was a real thorn in a lot of people's sides. Because it felt like they were being written off, written off the ledger, you know, here's your money, now go away.

What we're offering here is the ability to take that by the month at an increased and far more generous rate."

The NCVA says veterans with the same injuries receive different compensation levels if one fought before 2006 and one was injured after 2006: Up to $2,733 a month under the old pensions, compared to a maximum of $2,600 under the new plan. What do you make of that point?

It's an argument that was had in 2006, over the New Veterans Charter. We are building on an agreement that was made by all parties and many veterans groups back in 2006.

There is a short window there where you did have an overlap, where you had men and women who were fighting side-by-side in Afghanistan, some who would fall under the Pension Act of 1919 and some who would fall under the New Veterans Charter. That is absolutely true.

With the increased benefits that we're allowing right now, we're going back to those people who received those lump sum payments, 2006 and after, and we are going to calculate how much they would have received if they had those new benefits when they accepted that amount.

Then we subtract the lump sum that we've given them and give them the rest over monthly payments. I mean, for some people, this could be a substantial amount of money.

The new program won't come into effect until April 1, 2019. Why is it taking so long? Why not this year?

Partially related to another subject, and that's Phoenix (the federal government's troubled pay system). Laying out very specialized financial compensation to thousands of people we, you know, now know can be very complicated work.

There's also a legislative agenda. We're already under the gun, I can tell you, to make sure this legislation gets drafted.

Some veterans who voted for the Liberals did so thinking the disparity between the old system and the new one would be adressed. What do you say to veterans who feel let down by your new plan?

I won't go back to the Pension Act of 1919. It did not meet the needs of our veterans. That's what we heard in 2006.

That's why every political party in Parliament agreed to this. We focus on rehabilitative services. We focus on the ability of people getting back to meaningful work because I know first hand, in my own experience, that there is nothing better than meaningful work.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/oregan-responds-critics-injured-veterans-pensions-1.4480013

avatar
Trooper

Administrator

Posts : 989
Join date : 2017-10-07

http://cvdbsf.forumotion.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: I won’t go back to the Pension Act of 1919

Post by Dannypaj on Wed 10 Jan 2018, 1:57 pm

I'll decide what is better for me.
Because when he says "I" who's he speaking for exactly?
For himself  and whatever army he feels is strongly supporting.

But, with a title and no military rank, double down?
This isn't gambling, we're real people, yes you and me.
Stop the shanigans and lay out the New and improved NVC.
Political process and  sources as well, so we can judge ourselves.
avatar
Dannypaj
Forum Advocate

Posts : 150
Join date : 2017-10-09

Back to top Go down

Re: I won’t go back to the Pension Act of 1919

Post by Wolfman on Wed 10 Jan 2018, 3:52 pm

Not a whole lot of common sense has come out so far with this minister, on the one hand he says he will never go back to the old pension act but he says that there was an overlap between both systems of soldiers fighting the same war. 2005 and 2006. Is that not really saying that the pension act is better then the NVC?
avatar
Wolfman

News Coordinator

Posts : 146
Join date : 2017-12-08

Back to top Go down

Re: I won’t go back to the Pension Act of 1919

Post by iceman on Wed 10 Jan 2018, 4:24 pm

simple math
360,000 / 25 years / 12 months = 1200 / month
that same amount, put in a low risk investment returning 4% a year.
360,000 * .04% / 12 = 1200 / month

the government with this new plan is not putting extra money out.
In fact they are saving money, as the will still have the initial 360,000 after a veteran's lifetime of receiving the "lifetime" pension amount

all VAC needs to do is "invest" any corresponding lump sums that would have been paid out, and just pay out the return on a monthly basis. and a huge bank account for VAC.  

I can bet they will be heavily promoting the "lifetime" pension option.
Can you see bureaucratic bonuses for anyone that convinces a veteran go go lifetime pension?


Last edited by iceman on Wed 10 Jan 2018, 4:25 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : spelling)

iceman

Registered User

Posts : 7
Join date : 2017-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: I won’t go back to the Pension Act of 1919

Post by Trooper on Wed 10 Jan 2018, 7:21 pm

Wolfmann wrote:Not a whole lot of common sense has come out so far with this minister, on the one hand he says he will never go back to the old pension act but he says that there was an overlap between both systems of soldiers fighting the same war. 2005 and 2006. Is that not really saying that the pension act is better then the NVC?

Wolfmann,

I agree, admitting there was an overlap between those fighting the same war is basically saying that the pension act is superior over the New Charter.
avatar
Trooper

Administrator

Posts : 989
Join date : 2017-10-07

http://cvdbsf.forumotion.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: I won’t go back to the Pension Act of 1919

Post by Trooper on Wed 10 Jan 2018, 7:48 pm

Quote
Seamus O’Regan

"I won't go back to the Pension Act of 1919. It did not meet the needs of our veterans. That's what we heard in 2006.

That's why every political party in Parliament agreed to this. We focus on rehabilitative services. We focus on the ability of people getting back to meaningful work because I know first hand, in my own experience, that there is nothing better than meaningful work."


So they are saying that the pension act did not meet the needs of Veterans? But a lot of Veterans are asking to revert back to the old pension act? And those who were grandfathered to the old pension act are 100% OK with it?
Is this not what each Veterans Minister said before Seamus O’Regan going back to 2006?
I totally disagree with Seamus O’Regan! The pension act met the needs of Veterans, and certainly any new benefits added to the pension act would have been welcomed, and would have been the proper and civil way to treat disabled Canadian Veterans. Not the enacting of the New Veterans Charter!

So we have went from a tax free for life pension with additional tax free allowances, to a system which focuses on rehabilitation, and getting Veterans off pensions, and back into the work force?

This is what they call better than the old pension act?

I totally disagree with this type of pure idiotic form of judgement!

It is a joke, and a insult to my intelligence!
avatar
Trooper

Administrator

Posts : 989
Join date : 2017-10-07

http://cvdbsf.forumotion.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: I won’t go back to the Pension Act of 1919

Post by Dannypaj on Wed 10 Jan 2018, 8:20 pm

BINGO!!!
avatar
Dannypaj
Forum Advocate

Posts : 150
Join date : 2017-10-09

Back to top Go down

Re: I won’t go back to the Pension Act of 1919

Post by bosn181 on Thu 11 Jan 2018, 12:46 am

no need to say anything more than what you already said imo.

bosn181

Registered User

Posts : 52
Join date : 2017-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: I won’t go back to the Pension Act of 1919

Post by Dannypaj on Thu 11 Jan 2018, 7:16 am

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/contemptuous-culture-within-veterans-affairs-ministry-harming-service-delivery-claims-former-soldier-1.4481576

Keep firing away.
Transparency in the form of articles.
Speak directly to the media in voicing your concerns, this allows others including myself to know that I am not alone.
Breathing living Charter, every morning I wake up, is a good morning.
Speaking of the NVC....
In order to be approved for the CIA (s) a board will need to be convened and review my case.
That is what is taking so long.
Back to work program, hence it is not the Pension Act.
Financial security.
Dimwits (people running the veterans file)!!!
I am Telling you, "they think we're stupid."

"It is all a lie!"  my buddy an ex -RCA stated to me.
I believe him now.

A new, consolidated Income Replacement Benefit (IRB), which is taxable, would combine four pre-existing benefits (Earnings Loss Benefit, Extended Earnings Loss Benefit, Supplementary Retirement Benefit, and Retirement Income Security Benefit) with a proviso that the IRB would be increased by one percent every year until the veteran reaches what would have been 20 years of service or age 60, and that any veteran who wishes to join the work force may also earn up to $20,000 from employment before any reduction will be made to their IRB payment. It is not without financial significance that the current Career Impact Allowance and Career Impact Allowance Supplement have been eliminated from the Income Replacement Benefit package.

Read bolded statement carefully.

Wishes (when injured, injuries control my day, not the other way around)
Financial security in place in form of IRB?
avatar
Dannypaj
Forum Advocate

Posts : 150
Join date : 2017-10-09

Back to top Go down

Re: I won’t go back to the Pension Act of 1919

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum