It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report says 60,000 veterans get triple benefits

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Call it what you will but it IS defined as Compensation.

If you use arbitrary opinions how can yo reach conclusions about anything. This is not a debate about comfort levels of the participants, it is a debate about the rules regarding Compensation.




posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

If the SAME company offered three varieties of payment after release for services rendered what shareholder would be pleased?

It's valid to question this practice particularly when the 'pensioner' had never made a larger income or was highly valued during their work life.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

Conceptually correct but not in practice. Compensation is based on an idea as to what the disability has on the AVERAGE impact on earnings. It's actually pretty close when the added benefits and tax free income is considered. Since in 2013 the average family had $52K/yr, throw in the SS benefit and they are doing far better. Add the retirement and they are living in the upper middle income class.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

Medically retired is a different system than regular retirement. Are you considered TDRL or PDRL? If you are TDRL, be aware that the DoD will be checking up on you to see if they can reduce payments. I've seen them do it to one of my troops who lost a foot. He's fighting to have his TDRL changed to PDRL but typical Gov't is dragging it's feet.

They tried to medically retire me for my injuries, but I had already submitted my retirement paperwork before they went that route, so they couldn't do it. I actually make more on my pension than I would have being medically retired. It was still a long two year battle with all the Higher up Admin/HR weenies.

And no...you are not triple dipping either. If you are getting SS disability than you are. Some need it, and it sounds like you may. Check it out with your State/County VSO.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Yeah, let's cut benefits even more for vets. After all, they are scammers are they not? Let's make it so hard to get benefits only injured people can get them. Because the current system does that so well right? It's not like there are some people who have been injured in combat and still haven't received benefits after years of waiting.

You make me sick. Who gives a crap if they're triple dipping? They aren't making anything!

The average congressman or senator gets over 100,000 a year in retirement after one term. That's 4 years of being in climate controlled plushy seats. They don't do anything at all to deserve that and you're whining about 60,000 people who MIGHT get 100,000?

And that's not with just a pension. That's with pension, social security, AND VA disability.

Why are you guys attacking veterans who served their country and want to get properly compensated for injuries or ailments received?

Let's say that out of the 60 thousand that 10 thousand are scammers. Our so called public servants don't do anything for their entire careers and get more in pensions in 5 years than these so called scammers will get in 10.

How do you justify attacking those who can't defend themselves?



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: largo

Right, and the rules are in place and allowed. If you don't like it take it up with the government you vote for.

Until then stop disparaging service men and women of this country. You're impugning wrong motives onto people you have not one ounce of knowledge about personally.

I will have nearly 4m in my 401k when I retire...I earned it. I'll live comfortably. These men and women who spend a career in service DESERVE ample retirement compensation. They earned it. They should live comfortably.
edit on 4-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: thisguy27

Who is "you"?

I do agree with the majority of what you say. If you have read the entire thread, you will see that I call for some of all the thousands of Gov't jobs out there that some be transferred to a investigative position. It could fall under the GAO and be used to root out any and all scammers. Even former Gov't officials.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I will get disability when I retire, I will also eventually get military retirement (10 years active 10+ reserves) and I am now in civil service so I will get a piece of that as well.. so in a sense I will be a triple dipper and it wont bother me at all, I have been exposed to numerous cancer causing substances over my career, and cancer runs in my family... if I live long enough I will have earned it in my opinion.

I have held off on applying for disability because none of my issues is preventing me from working or serving, and like others have stated when you have regular contact with people that lost limbs... a bad back, bad hearing, and other medical problems don't seem so bad since I have all my digits.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Thanks. I posted these replies around two in the morning. Even my prrofreading (sic) started falling apart.

Being a peg is never easy. Some folks truly love it. Foreign lands, chances for advancement, education, sophisticated careers, secrets unfolding, decent money, 'bennies", control over the destiny of nations-pretty heady stuff really.

The only down sides are moving, arbitrary craziness, stress from over-work, awful assignments and enforced loneliness number amongst the worse aspects. I went to an isolated remote site in Turkey. It was hell. My fellow identical specialist went to Majorca. Guess who felt screwed?



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I don't believe I should have to continue paying someone for their military career after they have ceased their involvement in said military, not taking into account injuries received on the job.

Get injured? Sure, I'll pay for your recuperation.
Disabled? Yup, I'm on board with helping you retain a comfortable existence.
Retiring? Get another job, or hope you invested well, because that's what the government tells civilians to do.
Social Security? If your job pays in, you should receive benefits.

I don't personally feel that I get my money's worth from expenditures on the military as it is, so I may be biased by that.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

I was TDRL, but I will be moved to PDRL next month with a 10% drop in rating. So, that means no more Army retirement at all. Just the VA disability and the CRSC. I'll double dip until they figure out a way to screw me out of that next LoL

Life's a gamble. Many of us trusted that we would be able to survive off the government stipend if we were injured while serving. We were told if we served 20 years we would be compensated (granted I only did 18 years 10 1/2 months active and 3 years guard).

Tried to work when I got out. It's a vicious cycle. I can't take meds at work and I can't work without meds. My legs don't work half the time and I lose sight in my right eye about 4 days out of the week. It's next to impossible to find a job that pays the bills.

They cut the legs from under the vets and push them into a corner and then wonder why so many are eating a 230 grain breakfast...........



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

Actually the DoD is wanting to do just as you stated. No more financial pensions, but rather a 401K type of system. This would save the DoD money, but in my opinion hurt retainabilty and recruitment.

There are also rumors that said wanted system would hold off on any payments until the age of 60.

Personally, I think that would be a stupid move on the DoD's part if they follow through with it. They won't be able to keep people in, much less recruit.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

I think that sounds absolutely fantastic, both from a fiscal standpoint and recruitment/retention deterrent.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

Yea, I would say that you really need to go see your County/State VSO and even the DAV. They should be able to help you, though it is a time consuming process. Patience is required. Good luck!



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

That makes no sense though. We do pay taxes for the defense of our nation. Has our military been used in useless endeavors? Absolutely.

But we as a nation still need them. Maybe if we got rid of a lot of the miscreants in the three levels of Government, then we could see some progress.

DoD has already reduced recruiting goals and that has always hurt when manpower is needed.

Personally, I think the military saved me from myself. I was quite the emotional hothead upon entering and they taught me to direct that anger in a more logical way. Being part of something big made me think rationally, rather than emotionally.

But people who scam the system, whether it be welfare or veterans benefits still push my hot button. I'm human after all.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

And if our standing army is smaller, less money would need to be spent on defense (with less people scamming the system). Less money spent on defense means more tax money for everything else.

I'd rather spend money on domestic concerns than useless military endeavors and the soldiers to carry them out.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Have you ever looked at the golden retirement benefits of congress?!



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

If you would do some research you will find that much of the money spent at the DoD is spent and wasted on R&D. Not the Servicemembers. But they are the low hanging fruit to rip off so R&D gets more.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

If you decrease the amount of people doing R&D, the budget for R&D stagnates. You decrease the amount of people doing R&D by decreasing the amount of military liaisons working in civilian firms. Decreasing the size of the military decreases spending across the board.



posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

OK, I think I get it. You are anti-military and want to see those who have broken their bodies and served decades to be kicked to the curb, but yet are all for welfare queens? (ie: Social programs)

Do I have that right?

And I guarantee you that there are more welfare recipients scamming the system then Vets. Demographics says such. But you can't admit to that, eh?
edit on 4-11-2014 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join