Unmarried soldiers?

[Figleaf]

Why is Steve's government so contemptuous of unmarried soldiers?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National

Excerpts:

Lincoln Dinning has written ... related to the death of his son, Matthew, who was killed in Afghanistan a year ago. ... to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask why the families of married soldiers receive a $250,000 death benefit and the families of unmarried soldiers get nothing.

He has yet to receive a reply.

...

"Please tell me how it is fair that married soldier who gives his or her life for Canada is worth $250,000 while a single, unmarried soldier who also gives his life for Canada is worth zero dollars in your government's eyes," Mr. Dining wrote ...

[geoffrey]

Why is Steve's government so contemptuous of unmarried soldiers?

Why were the governments of the last 140 years the same way???

[capricorn]

To be clear, the $250K payment to the surviving spouse and/or dependants of a soldier killed in action is administered by Veterans Affairs by virtue of the Veterans Charter which came into effect 2 years ago. DND has nothing to do with it. Veterans Affairs also has a program to compensate soldiers who suffer loss of limbs as a result of combat.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?s...nvc/programs/ob

The intent of this payment is to compensate for loss of earnings and to help maintain an adequate standard of living for the deceased soldier's spouse and children.

In the case of single/unmarried soldiers, there are no surviving spouses and no children. Surely, parents cannot claim that the wages of their deceased sons contributed to their livelihood or to their standard of living. If my unmarried son died in the line of duty, I would not begrudge this payment to married soldiers killed in action. I certainly would not lobby to be eligible for it.

This Veterans Affairs payment is not to put a value on human life but to compensate those who consequently suffer from the loss of income related to death in the line of duty.

This seems fair to me.

[scribblet]

To be clear, the $250K payment to the surviving spouse and/or dependants of a soldier killed in action is administered by Veterans Affairs by virtue of the Veterans Charter which came into effect 2 years ago. DND has nothing to do with it. Veterans Affairs also has a program to compensate soldiers who suffer loss of limbs as a result of combat.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?s...nvc/programs/ob

The intent of this payment is to compensate for loss of earnings and to help maintain an adequate standard of living for the deceased soldier's spouse and children.

In the case of single/unmarried soldiers, there are no surviving spouses and no children. Surely, parents cannot claim that the wages of their deceased sons contributed to their livelihood or to their standard of living. If my unmarried son died in the line of duty, I would not begrudge this payment to married soldiers killed in action. I certainly would not lobby to be eligible for it.

This Veterans Affairs payment is not to put a value on human life but to compensate those who consequently suffer from the loss of income related to death in the line of duty.

This seems fair to me.

And me....

[Leafless]

Why is Steve's government so contemptuous of unmarried soldiers?

I can't understand why it is NOT official policy that all military personnel be single rather than married.

We want fighters, not emotionally charged family men burdened with wives and children in a dangerous occupation.

[bush_cheney2004]

I can't understand why it is NOT official policy that all military personnel be single rather than married.

We want fighters, not emotionally charged family men burdened with wives and children in a dangerous occupation.

Ahem....that often makes them the best "fighters".

[Wilber]

QUOTE

Lincoln Dinning has written ... related to the death of his son, Matthew, who was killed in Afghanistan a year ago. ... to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask why the families of married soldiers receive a $250,000 death benefit and the families of unmarried soldiers get nothing.

He has yet to receive a reply.

...

"Please tell me how it is fair that married soldier who gives his or her life for Canada is worth $250,000 while a single, unmarried soldier who also gives his life for Canada is worth zero dollars in your government's eyes," Mr. Dining wrote ...

Perhaps it's because a married soldier has dependents. Was Mr. Dinning expecting his son to move back home to be a dependent for the rest of his life? Parents of fire fighters or police officers aren't compensated if their child is killed in the line of duty but their wives and children should be looked after.

Methinks Mr. Dinning may be using his son's death to make a political point of his own.

[Figleaf]

To be clear, the $250K payment to the surviving spouse and/or dependants of a soldier killed in action is administered by Veterans Affairs by virtue of the Veterans Charter which came into effect 2 years ago.

Thank you -- There's the answer to Geoffrey's quibble.

The intent of this payment is to compensate for loss of earnings and to help maintain an adequate standard of living for the deceased soldier's spouse and children.

In the case of single/unmarried soldiers, there are no surviving spouses and no children.

Well, that certainly sounds like a confirmation that unmarried soldiers lives are worth less.

But maybe you can clear up a related question -- what about soldiers who are unmarried but have children? What about soldiers with no children but with estranged spouses?

Surely, parents cannot claim that the wages of their deceased sons contributed to their livelihood or to their standard of living.

And what if the facts are that the child is contributing to the parents' upkeep? It's hardly unheard of.

[Figleaf]

Methinks Mr. Dinning may be using his son's death to make a political point of his own.

What a despicable thing to say.

[Wilber]

Methinks Mr. Dinning may be using his son's death to make a political point of his own.

What a despicable thing to say.

Really? When you talk about a death benefit, you are referring to the needs of the recipient, not the value of the deceased. My son is a cop and if the worst ever happened to him, I wouldn't be putting a dollar value on his life.

[Michael Bluth]

Really? When you talk about a death benefit, you are referring to the needs of the recipient, not the value of the deceased. My son is a cop and if the worst ever happened to him, I wouldn't be putting a dollar value on his life.

I think you are right Wilber.

I'm hoping the Dinning's were just duped by the opposition into the dog and pony show they put on.

I really can't think of how a parent could try and cash in on the death of a child.

[capricorn]

To be clear, the $250K payment to the surviving spouse and/or dependants of a soldier killed in action is administered by Veterans Affairs by virtue of the Veterans Charter which came into effect 2 years ago.

Thank you -- There's the answer to Geoffrey's quibble.

The intent of this payment is to compensate for loss of earnings and to help maintain an adequate standard of living for the deceased soldier's spouse and children.

In the case of single/unmarried soldiers, there are no surviving spouses and no children.

Well, that certainly sounds like a confirmation that unmarried soldiers lives are worth less.

But maybe you can clear up a related question -- what about soldiers who are unmarried but have children? What about soldiers with no children but with estranged spouses?

Surely, parents cannot claim that the wages of their deceased sons contributed to their livelihood or to their standard of living.

And what if the facts are that the child is contributing to the parents' upkeep? It's hardly unheard of.

I provided for the hypothetical situation where there may be dependants other than a spouse in my first sentence when I stated "surviving spouse and/or dependants". Dependants can mean children of an estranged spouse or perhaps a parent who is disabled. In all honesty, I am certain these cases would fall in the minority. I am also sure the system provides for all these eventualities.

As for estranged spouses, I would object strongly if the estranged spouse with no children borne of the fallen soldier received a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers' money. Wouldn't you?

The Royal Canadian Legion has Veterans Service Officers country-wide who are well informed and ready to advocate on behalf of all members of the Canadian forces who may have a claim against the government. This includes claims by families of soldiers killed in the line of duty. I have complete confidence in their ability to obtain the benefits owed to the soldiers' dependants, whoever they may be. I also believe that Veterans Affairs works for the benefit of our soldiers and their dependants.

Nothing I can say will change your presumption that our government values one life more than another. That is your opinion, so I will leave it at that.

[capricorn]

Really? When you talk about a death benefit, you are referring to the needs of the recipient, not the value of the deceased. My son is a cop and if the worst ever happened to him, I wouldn't be putting a dollar value on his life.

I think you are right Wilber.

I'm hoping the Dinning's were just duped by the opposition into the dog and pony show they put on.

I really can't think of how a parent could try and cash in on the death of a child.

The Dinnings are overcome with grief. They were most vulnerable and still are. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and conclude they were not well counseled well before they went public. There were other ways they could have made their point. I feel for them.

[Wilber]

The Dinnings are overcome with grief. They were most vulnerable and still are. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and conclude they were not well counseled well before they went public. There were other ways they could have made their point. I feel for them.

You are right of course and I was somewhat harsh regarding Mr. Dinning. However I have no time for others who would try to get political mileage out of that grief or try to manipulate it for their own ends.

[weaponeer]

I am a single soldier. If it happens to me here in Afghanistan there's no pay out as I have no dependants. In the military you either have or do not have what the military calls "dependants". Dependants are your wife/spouse, and/or children. Your parents, brother, uncle are not dependants therefore they are not entitled to anything financially. What is my life worth to my mom???

I paid off all my bills before I left, except for the new truck I bought, so there's no need to hand out money. There was no money given out after Vimy Ridge, Passchandale or Normandy. Yes, pay for the funeral in full, and support the spouses and children.... unlimited liability, we volunteered to be expendable....

[M.Dancer]

Why is Steve's government so contemptuous of unmarried soldiers?

Methinks Figleaf is using the deaths of single soldiers to make a political point of his own.

[scribblet]

Why is Steve's government so contemptuous of unmarried soldiers?

Methinks Figleaf is using the deaths of single soldiers to make a political point of his own.

In a particularly despicable manner.

[Figleaf]

...And what if the facts are that the child is contributing to the parents' upkeep? It's hardly unheard of.

I am also sure the system provides for all these eventualities.

It sounds like you are assuming rather than speaking from knowledge. How are you sure?

As for estranged spouses, I would object strongly if the estranged spouse with no children borne of the fallen soldier received a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers' money. Wouldn't you?

Yes, I would, that's why I want to know.

Nothing I can say will change your presumption that our government values one life more than another.

Actually, if your glib assumptions turned out to be true it might change my mind. Would you say the same in the converse situation?

[Michael Bluth]

Methinks Figleaf is using the deaths of single soldiers to make a political point of his own.

In a particularly despicable manner.

But it's the same point over and over and over again.

He finds a way to vent his displeasure with the Government on everything they don't.

Can't he at least show a little respect to the families of our brave soldiers who have given their lives in defence of our country?

[capricorn]

...And what if the facts are that the child is contributing to the parents' upkeep? It's hardly unheard of.

I am also sure the system provides for all these eventualities.

It sounds like you are assuming rather than speaking from knowledge. How are you sure?

As for estranged spouses, I would object strongly if the estranged spouse with no children borne of the fallen soldier received a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers' money. Wouldn't you?

Yes, I would, that's why I want to know.

Nothing I can say will change your presumption that our government values one life more than another.

Actually, if your glib assumptions turned out to be true it might change my mind. Would you say the same in the converse situation?

No, I am not sure. Neither do I have personal knowledge of the interpretation given by Veterans Affairs in every case where the term "dependant" had to be interpreted in determining eligibility. I was in fact agreeing with you that there may be rare cases where the fallen soldier did have a dependant disabled parent.

In reading the text of the Veterans Charter, it does not provide for such cases. Yet, if an application for benefits was made on behalf of the disabled parent and refused, that decision could be appealed through the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. I could not find any relevant cases going forward to that Board. It therefore appears the definition of dependant has not yet been challenged.

The Income Tax Act provides deductions for taxpayers who support disabled parents. Therefore, a disabled parent who is supported by a soldier becomes the soldier's dependant for income tax purposes. What more evidence would be required to prove that the soldier's parent was his/her dependant. There is a good case to be made that if Revenue Canada recognizes this definition of dependant why not Veterans Affairs. We will not know until such a case presents itself, if ever.

I am always open to hearing opposing views and to be held to account for my words.

[Riverwind]

There is a good case to be made that if Revenue Canada recognizes this definition of dependant why not Veterans Affairs. We will not know until such a case presents itself, if ever.

There was a case where parents received compensation for the deaith of their only child based on the expectation that their child would support them in their old age (i.e. they were not dependent on the child at the time).

[Figleaf]

No, I am not sure. Neither do I have personal knowledge of the interpretation given by Veterans Affairs in every case where the term "dependant" had to be interpreted in determining eligibility. I was in fact agreeing with you that there may be rare cases where the fallen soldier did have a dependant disabled parent.

Sorry, when I trimmed the quote, I left out all the other cases we mentioned other than disabled parents. Personally, I don't see why the parent needs to be disabled -- presumably the spouses don't.

As to whether the meritorious non-spouse cases are 'rare', I suspect we don't know that for sure either.

I am always open to hearing opposing views and to be held to account for my words.

Likewise, and belated welcome to the forum.

[southerncomfort]

Single people do not normally receive dependant benefits in any workplace plan, this is nothing but another vicious bash Harper thread with no morallity to it at all.

The problem of married and single benefits is one of the reasons some companies offer a plan which gives a flat amount of $$$ per employee which that employee can use any way they wish. It sure doesn't reflect on the CPC or the Liberals for that matter its a normal occurence within any organization.

[capricorn]

Single people do not normally receive dependant benefits in any workplace plan, this is nothing but another vicious bash Harper thread with no morallity to it at all.

The problem of married and single benefits is one of the reasons some companies offer a plan which gives a flat amount of $$$ per employee which that employee can use any way they wish. It sure doesn't reflect on the CPC or the Liberals for that matter its a normal occurence within any organization.

With all due respect, southerncomfort, we are not speaking here of normal workplace plans. What we are discussing are concerns relevant to benefits paid when soldiers lay down their lives because Canada sent them to war.

I am not posting here for partisan reasons. Regardless of which party is in power, I hold my government accountable for how our soldiers and their families are treated. For me, recognition of sacrifice and fairness are paramount.

It makes no difference whether it's CPC or Liberal policy.

[Renegade]

Personally I agree with Dinning. This is a discrimminatory benefit provided one group and not another based upon martial status.

Essentially the married soldiers are being provided life insurance with a $250,000 payout, as part of their employment conditions. That same benefit is not provided to single soldiers. The single soldiers should either be provided with equivalent coverage or should have their pay increased to compensate them for the lack of coverage.