Unmarried soldiers?

[Wilber]

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.

Any death benefit is provided for the dependents. You can't benefit from something if you are dead. I don't think I am unusual in that I didn't bother with life insurance until I had a family of my own. Probably more the norm than the exception. What is the difference here? Because soldiers would not be able to buy life insurance in the normal fashion to cover them in war zones, perhaps single soldiers should have the option of buying it from the government at normal rates.

[Renegade]

Any death benefit is provided for the dependents.

I disagree. It is provided for whomever the benificary designates. He could for example designate a charity to recieve a death benefit.

Because soldiers would not be able to buy life insurance in the normal fashion to cover them in war zones, perhaps single soldiers should have the option of buying it from the government at normal rates.

Since the government is providing "life insurance" for married soldiers without additional cost, it should provide the same for single soldiers. Why should single soldiers buy it when married soldiers do not. It is clearly discrimmination.

[guyser]

Since the government is providing "life insurance" for married soldiers without additional cost, it should provide the same for single soldiers. Why should single soldiers buy it when married soldiers do not. It is clearly discrimmination.

And you are absolutely correct. It is ridiculous that single vs married exists. I wont blame Harper as I beleive this inequality has been around for awhile.

But how dumb is it not to see this.

Pay $250,000 upon death. Period, no matter family or not. Pretty easy really.

[Wilber]

Pay $250,000 upon death. Period, no matter family or not. Pretty easy really.

Pay to who, the deceased? Money for nothing. Death benefits are for dependants, otherwise there is no need for them at all. Pretty easy really.

[Wilber]

Why should single soldiers buy it when married soldiers do not. It is clearly discrimmination.

There could be extenuating circumstances in some cases but in general, single soldiers don't need it, nor do most single non soldiers.

[Figleaf]

Why should the unmarried soldier subsidize the married soldier?

[Renegade]

Pay to who, the deceased? Money for nothing. Death benefits are for dependants, otherwise there is no need for them at all. Pretty easy really.

Death benefits is an insurance term and is defined as follows:

The amount on a life-insurance policy or pension that is payable to the beneficiary when the annuitant passes away.

link

The beneficiary is named, and does not necessarily need to be a dependant.

[Renegade]

Why should single soldiers buy it when married soldiers do not. It is clearly discrimmination.

There could be extenuating circumstances in some cases but in general, single soldiers don't need it, nor do most single non soldiers.

"Need" is a subjective term.Why should the VA determine who "needs" it? Treat everyone equally.

Should we pay single soldiers less than married ones, because their "needs" are less? Do you not agree with equal pay for equal work?

[Wilber]

"Need" is a subjective term.Why should the VA determine who "needs" it? Treat everyone equally.

Should we pay single soldiers less than married ones, because their "needs" are less? Do you not agree with equal pay for equal work?

I wouldn't have a problem if the definition of dependent was expanded beyond those who were married and or have children as long as they were in a relationship which made them dependent on that persons income.

I don't see a death benefit as a prize for getting killed. It is to look after those who relied on the income of the deceased. It really has nothing to do with the soldier IMO. There is a fundamental difference in the way we look at it.

[M.Dancer]

I have a feeling that this benefits history goes back at least to the Second World War. I remember reading Churchill's account (who was also minister of defense, or war) of the disparities between enlisted and officers, single and married men.

If I remember correctly he wanted the incentives for married men to be there, so they wouldn't have to worry about their families.

In today's context however, not in the throws of total war, it may seem out dated, but at the very least, an option for the single troopers to buy additional coverage should be there.

[Renegade]

I wouldn't have a problem if the definition of dependent was expanded beyond those who were married and or have children as long as they were in a relationship which made them dependent on that persons income.

My point isn't about expanding the scope of who is cosidered a dependant. It is, that it shouldn't matter who a soldier designates as beneficiary. It can be a dependant, a relative, a charity, or complete stranger.

Afterall shoud an insurance company care who they pay out the death benefit to on an insurance policy?

I don't see a death benefit as a prize for getting killed. It is to look after those who relied on the income of the deceased. It really has nothing to do with the soldier IMO.

I don't see it as a prize either, and they way you have described it, I don't see it as any different than life insurance.

There is a fundamental difference in the way we look at it.

Yes of course, but despite it's intended purpose, you don't seem to acknowledge that it is a benefit provided to one group buy not another.

You never did answer the questions. Do you believe in equal pay for equal work? And, should soldiers pay be dependant upon how many mouths they have to feed?

[Leafless]

I don't see it as a prize either, and they way you have described it, I don't see it as any different than life insurance.

I agree with Renegade as there are other plans in Canada's military that are treated like a regular insurance plan and I don't think this one should be any different.

"Note: These benefits are payable to the surviving spouse and dependants, but where there is no spouse, they will be paid to the deceased's estate."

http://www.mdn.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/2_02/2_0...youregone_e.asp

This death benefit paid only to married military personnel discriminates.

[Wilber]

Yes of course, but despite it's intended purpose, you don't seem to acknowledge that it is a benefit provided to one group buy not another.

You never did answer the questions. Do you believe in equal pay for equal work? And, should soldiers pay be dependant upon how many mouths they have to feed?

The benefit is not adjusted according to how many mouths he has to feed, why should his pay? It has nothing to do with equal work for equal pay, it is about looking after his dependents if he is no longer there to do so. He is not working for it, he is dead. It has nothing to do with working for pay. It has nothing to do with him.

What if that married soldier decided to make someone other than his dependent wife and children the beneficiary? Would you approve of that? If a single soldier could determine his beneficiary, why not a married soldier?

I disagree, this is a benefit for the dependents, not the soldier. I repeat, it is not the soldier's benefit, it is the dependents. It is to safeguard them, not him.

[Army Guy]

I think we are losing sight of the orginal intention of the verterns affairs death benifit, It's intention was to further assist the a soldiers immediate family, the financial means to carry out a some what normal life after the primary wage earner is disabled or killed. below is a discription of who the benifit is paid to, you either fit into that catogory or you don't...It's not something all soldiers pay into, it is a benfit to assist those left behind that are considered imediate family. Not all our benifits can be slotted into nice neat holes and declared for "ALL" serving members...

There are many examples of benifits married or single service members are entitled to, for example the military will pay for a single soldier one almost free trip home to vist his next of kin, married personal are not entitle to this benifit. while married pers are entitled to separation allowance, while deployed away from spouse and family.

I think some members are confusing it with an issurance plan which it is not, it is not paid into by a member like SSIP is ( a military life insurance plan). it's not an issurance plan but a benifit from the veterns affairs dept that is payed out if you qualify...

Death Benefit

The death benefit is a tax-free, lump sum payment. It is paid to a spouse or common-law partner, and dependent children, if a CF member is:

killed while in service; or

injured while in service and dies within 30 days of the injury.

vet affairs.

[Figleaf]

I think we are losing sight of the orginal intention of the verterns affairs death benifit, It's intention was to further assist the a soldiers immediate family, the financial means to carry out a some what normal life after the primary wage earner is disabled or killed. below is a discription of who the benifit is paid to, you either fit into that catogory or you don't...It's not something all soldiers pay into, it is a benfit to assist those left behind that are considered imediate family. ...

Thank you for the information. This suggests that parents, no matter how indigent or how much the member was contributing to them, get nothing. It suggests that estranged spouses do get the benefit.

In no way does it change the fact that the unmarried members' life is given less value than the married member's life. It discriminates on the basis of marital status. It forces unmarried members to subsidize benefits for married members.

There are many examples of benifits married or single service members are entitled to, for example the military will pay for a single soldier one almost free trip home to vist his next of kin, married personal are not entitle to this benifit. while married pers are entitled to separation allowance, while deployed away from spouse and family.

I think the military is in serious need of someone to re-evaluate their inequitable treatment of members based on marital status.

[guyser]

What if that married soldier decided to make someone other than his dependent wife and children the beneficiary? Would you approve of that? If a single soldier could determine his beneficiary, why not a married soldier?

Cannot legislate against stupidity. But go on anyway.

I disagree, this is a benefit for the dependents, not the soldier. I repeat, it is not the soldier's benefit, it is the dependents. It is to safeguard them, not him.

Nope, this is a benefit payable upon death. Exactly the same as Life Insurance. It matters not a whit that he/she is single, married ,transgendered, green headed or what.

Maybe in your world, we can exclude any payments to dead soldiers if Grandma and Grandpa have tons of cash.

The payment should get done on the death of a soldier, period. In your world the family guy who has seven kids should get more than the guy with 2 kids, since you make the arguement it is "dependant " designed.So you want a sliding scale payment plan.

Pay the cash to the estate. That way the family of the soldier, be it wife mom son daughter, could in effect use the money to set a memorial, maybe a scholarship for a University or College, all sorts of ideas.

[capricorn]

As I said earlier, challenging the definition of dependant would force a decision on the matter of eligibility. One expert thinks it is a Charter issue. I don't see the government changing the present policy unless it is ordered to do so by the courts.

http://canadaeast.com/ce2/docroot/article.php?articleID=5741

[Wilber]

Nope, this is a benefit payable upon death. Exactly the same as Life Insurance. It matters not a whit that he/she is single, married ,transgendered, green headed or what.

Actually it is a benefit provided for the dependents of deceased soldiers because the government feels they should be looked after and that soldier needs to know that they will be looked after if they are to put their lives on the line. It is the governments decision to do this and it is the government who pays for it on their behalf.

[guyser]

Nope, this is a benefit payable upon death. Exactly the same as Life Insurance. It matters not a whit that he/she is single, married ,transgendered, green headed or what.

Actually it is a benefit provided for the dependents of deceased soldiers because the government feels they should be looked after and that soldier needs to know that they will be looked after if they are to put their lives on the line. It is the governments decision to do this and it is the government who pays for it on their behalf.

And the Government is stupid. Lets hope this is challenged in the courts.

[Army Guy]

Thank you for the information. This suggests that parents, no matter how indigent or how much the member was contributing to them, get nothing. It suggests that estranged spouses do get the benefit.

The military death benifit is free burial , one years wages to the surviving spouse or as stated on the will. thats it and this has been upgraded just recently.

Most life insurances are not available to military members because of a war clause, (exception now being mortage insurance which is new) so to offer something the military thru the Canex offered SSIP. i think the most it pays out is 250,000 upon death in a duty zone. Not much when taking into account a mortage, kids education etc...This is available if a service person decides to pay into it, and pays out only if you've paid into it...most do but some don't...

Now this new death benifit comes from veterns affairs, because there was cases of soldiers with no coverage or very little coverage, to ensure the families or members as stated on the will got some finanical assistance they offered this benifit...It's intention was to assist not to place more value on any soldiers life but to assist those left behind...and like everything in life it is available only if you qualify...

In no way does it change the fact that the unmarried members' life is given less value than the married member's life. It discriminates on the basis of marital status. It forces unmarried members to subsidize benefits for married members.

Much like school taxes, everyone pays them, kids or no kids, but we all pay them.

Much like unemployment insurance i pay into it but can not collect it, there are millions of examples of all things not being equal and subject to being qualified for. This is one of them.

If a single member has his parents listed as dependants then i'm sure there might be a case for this death benifit to be payed out. but that would be the exception would it not, the average single soldier does not require additional money added to his estate just because...this benifit was intended to help out widows that were stuck and really needed the help.

I think the military is in serious need of someone to re-evaluate their inequitable treatment of members based on marital status.

Just the military is doing this, come on this is global, everything is based on do you qualify, yes or no...very little is based on fairness.

So what is next, stop offering recruiting bonuses to doctors, lawyers, mechanics, because not everyone qualifies for them...is it fair to all perhaps not, is it fair that my garbage man earns more money than i for less risk, are we ready to rip apart the whole system because a few think that helping out a widow, of a dead soldier is unfair to the single soldier...

Stop placing a money value on thier lives, and consider to whom this benifit was really for and it's intention.

[Renegade]

The benefit is not adjusted according to how many mouths he has to feed, why should his pay?

Of course it does. "mouths he has to feed" is a euphemism for dependants. It is a binary dependancy.

0 dependants = $0.

>1 dependant = $250K.

By your reasoning it should be permissable to pay a married soldier more than a single soldier because he has greater "needs" (read "dependants to support").

It has nothing to do with equal work for equal pay, it is about looking after his dependents if he is no longer there to do so. He is not working for it, he is dead. It has nothing to do with working for pay. It has nothing to do with him.

The dependants aren't employed by the state, the soldier is. The benefit is as a direct result of his employment and so should be considered as part of his renumineration. So yes it is very much a case of unequal pay for the same work.

If a company provided life insurance benefit to its employees would that be considered part of their pay? My company certainly considers it part of the overall compensation they provide. I believe CCRA does as well.

What distinguises this benefit from life insurance? Even with life insurance it is not the policy holder who collects the benefits, it is the beneficiary.

What if that married soldier decided to make someone other than his dependent wife and children the beneficiary? Would you approve of that? If a single soldier could determine his beneficiary, why not a married soldier?

Absolutely the married soldier should be allowed the same choice of designating their beneficiary as their single counterparts, and yes, it can be someone other than their dependants. If his dependants aren't happy with the designation, they can challenge it in court just as they would a will which did not leave them the estate.

I disagree, this is a benefit for the dependents, not the soldier. I repeat, it is not the soldier's benefit, it is the dependents. It is to safeguard them, not him.

How is it that the CCRA wants to tax me on the life insurance benefit my employer provides? If you are right, shoudn't that benefit be taxed in the hands of my dependant?

[Renegade]

I think we are losing sight of the orginal intention of the verterns affairs death benifit, It's intention was to further assist the a soldiers immediate family, the financial means to carry out a some what normal life after the primary wage earner is disabled or killed.

Despite what its original intent, if its implementation creates discrimminatory behaviour it should be changed.

It's not something all soldiers pay into,

Are you saying that married soldier pay something for this benefit which single soldiers do not?

Not all our benifits can be slotted into nice neat holes and declared for "ALL" serving members...

Perhaps not, but they can be offered in such as way as to not unnecessariy discriminate. In this particular case, there are precedents. For example, my employer thinks that I should have Long Term disabilty coverage (LTD) to replace part of my income in case I can't work. It makes it availale to all employees. If I have greated LTD coverage need, I can purchase more coverage and it comes of my pay. There is no reason the death benefit could not be offered in a similar fashion.

There are many examples of benifits married or single service members are entitled to, for example the military will pay for a single soldier one almost free trip home to vist his next of kin, married personal are not entitle to this benifit. while married pers are entitled to separation allowance, while deployed away from spouse and family.

Those too are discrimminatory practices and should be changed. If a married soldier wants an almost free trip home, he should be entitled. A single soldier may miss his girlfriend, dog, parents, friends, whatever, and should also be entitled to the same separation allowance.

I think some members are confusing it with an issurance plan which it is not, it is not paid into by a member like SSIP is ( a military life insurance plan). it's not an issurance plan but a benifit from the veterns affairs dept that is payed out if you qualify...

The reason why many consider it an insurance plan, is because it is indistinguishable from and insurance plan. It doesn't need members to pay into it to be considered insurance, employers can fully cover the member's premium.

Despite the question being asked, no one has yet provided and explaination of why it is different than insurance. All I've heard so far is denials that it is insurance without explainations of what makes it different.

Death Benefit

The death benefit is a tax-free, lump sum payment. It is paid to a spouse or common-law partner, and dependent children, if a CF member is:

killed while in service; or

injured while in service and dies within 30 days of the injury.

vet affairs.

Sounds suspiciously like the language used by life insurance companies don't you think?

[Keepitsimple]

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......

[Renegade]

Actually it is a benefit provided for the dependents of deceased soldiers because the government feels they should be looked after and that soldier needs to know that they will be looked after if they are to put their lives on the line. It is the governments decision to do this and it is the government who pays for it on their behalf.

I don't really see the relevance of your response to the issue. The government in this context is an employer. It is great that it provides this benefit, but should be applied accross the board.

Saying the government, pays for it or they make the decision doesn't make it right. The government has had discrimminatory policies before, which took a court challenge before it was changed.

The question is why is discrimmination permissable, and if it is, who gets to decide how much to permit? Is it soley up to the discretion of the government or employer?

If an employer decides that it wants to encourage families and so decides to give married employees every Friday off, is that permissable discrimmination?

[Keepitsimple]

This seems a perfect example of how we confuse discrimination with equality and lose sight of common sense. Let's just say we took the "non-discriminatory" way and gave everybody 250K. Does it make sense and does it sound fair and reasonable that a widowed mother with 4 kids gets 250K to struggle through life while a single person's 70 year old parents (for example) get a windfall of 250K? What purpose does that serve? It may sound like "equality" to some but to me, it clearly "discriminates" against the widowed mother. It all seems to come back to an attitude of "entitlement" and "what about me".