Unmarried soldiers?

[Renegade]

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?

Yes it sounds perfectly fair and reasonable to me.

What purpose does that serve?

The same purpose served by having anti-discrimminatory statutes in our charter of rights.

it clearly "discriminates" against the widowed mother.

How so?

[Riverwind]

it clearly "discriminates" against the widowed mother.

How so?

If you assume that the amount of money allocated to the military for payouts remains constant then the amount of funds available to each individual would be lower. This means the truely needy widow would end up with less. This problem does not exist if you assume that the military budget can be expanded as much as necessary to ensure no one ends up losing out. I don't have any data which would allow me to speculate on which assumption is most reasonable.

[Renegade]

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 has been mentioned that this is a VA benefit and not DND. Unfortunately this is not justification because they are two arms of the very same organization who happens to be the employer of the soldier.

They could also have achieved the stated aim of providing coverage to families, by making the insurance coverage mandatory.

[guyser]

This seems a perfect example of how we lose sight of common sense. Let's just say we took the "non-discriminatory" way and gave everybody 250K.

The only way it should be.

here is the skinny. It looks like , acts like, and smell like an insurance policy.

As such, there is only one way to be fair about this. The soldiers family situation, children number of wives should NEVER come into the equation.

The soldiers personal situation is moot.I understand it was not set up that way, but that was a pretty severe oversight. Maybe back then there was a reason, but that is lost now.

[guyser]

If you assume that the amount of money allocated to the military for payouts remains constant then the amount of funds available to each individual would be lower. This means the truely needy widow would end up with less. .

And that is immaterial. Personal situations are not used for assesment of payouts in insurance. Face value, no matter what the person has, 1 wife 10 kids 5 wives etc.

[Riverwind]

And that is immaterial. Personal situations are not used for assesment of payouts in insurance. Face value, no matter what the person has, 1 wife 10 kids 5 wives etc.

That would really depend on the group insurance provider. In this case the group insurance provider has decided to offer different payouts to people in different situations. I would assume they have calculated their costs based on their planned payout scheme. Changing the payout scheme would increase the costs.

Virtually every employee benefit package offers a 'family' dental plan. This plan means employees with families get more benefits and single employees are not compensated. Sure sometimes people complain about discrimination in these cases but you cannot argue that paying different benefits depending on the personal situation is unheard of.

For what its worth I do agree with the op: single soldiers should get the payout and the government should increase the budget by whatever is necessary to cover that cost. I even think the benefit should be increased to 500K. We are talking about a small number of people who put their life on the line because our government asked them too. I see no justification for counting pennies when one of them dies in the line of duty.

[BornAlbertan]

Sooooo...

Do our dead soldiers give their lives for their country or sell their lives to their country?

Dependants should be taken care of. Most deffinately. But I think the Dinning's are nationally tarnishing the memory of their son and completely going against what his son would have wanted.

[Riverwind]

Do our dead soldiers give their lives for their country or sell their lives to their country?

I never heard of a soldier fighting for no pay...

[guyser]

That would really depend on the group insurance provider. In this case the group insurance provider has decided to offer different payouts to people in different situations. I would assume they have calculated their costs based on their planned payout scheme. Changing the payout scheme would increase the costs.

I have seen nothing to indicate that the cost associated to the soldier/CF/Vet Affairs nor who pays them.It seems to me idiotic on the surface why they single out family men and stiff the single buy.A death benefit is universal, or should be. Same as in everyone here who has a benefits plan. Look on your Dec page and it will say $25,000 for death, or your auto insurance policy, same amount.

The only difference is that some executives of major companies will have varying payouts upon death, and some differences with respect to covered benefits,always more than the regular employee (ya think?)

Virtually every employee benefit package offers a 'family' dental plan. This plan means employees with families get more benefits and single employees are not compensated. Sure sometimes people complain about discrimination in these cases but you cannot argue that paying different benefits depending on the personal situation is unheard of.

Yes it is unheard of.

Benefits are paid out on an equal basis. The dollar amount may be different as someone may have more kids, thus more dental work, but the qualifying reasons for the benefit are the same. It works in reverse too.Family plans are more expensive than single plans, but they offer the same amount of benefits.

For what its worth I do agree with the op: single soldiers should get the payout and the government should increase the budget by whatever is necessary to cover that cost. I even think the benefit should be increased to 500K. We are talking about a small number of people who put their life on the line because our government asked them too. I see no justification for counting pennies when one of them dies in the line of duty.

And I agree 100%.

[Renegade]

If you assume that the amount of money allocated to the military for payouts remains constant then the amount of funds available to each individual would be lower. This means the truely needy widow would end up with less.

Yes true, if the pool for payouts is constant the widow ends up with less, yet she still ends up with her proportionate share. I don't call that discrimmintion against her.

[BornAlbertan]

I even think the benefit should be increased to 500K. We are talking about a small number of people who put their life on the line because our government asked them too.

So now you are valuing the lives of these soldiers more than that of the average person.

Should apply for a soldier who dies in a car accident while on furlow?

Should it apply to the soldier who died from gross incompetence?

Where do you raw the line?

[Figleaf]

Most life insurances are not available to military members because of a war clause, ...

That's a concern in two respects:

-first, it means CF members' cannot provide for the security of their survivors (whatever their relationship); and

-CF members can't obtain the financial advantages of buying insurance while they are young and healthy.

There should be a remedy for both of those problems, and it would be to create a government sponsored but mandatory premium-charging life insurance scheme for ALL CF members which legislation should make convertible to a commercial policy when they leave the forces.

Now this new death benifit ...It's intention was to assist not to place more value on any soldiers life but to assist those left behind...

The stated purpose of the benefit does not change the fact that the effect is to put a higher value on the lives of married members.

This money could instead be used to raise overall forces pay, or provide other other benefits, or to buy better armour and equipment. So it forces unmarried members to subsidize married members.

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

The theory there is that all of society benefits from an educated citizenry.

Much like unemployment insurance i pay into it but can not collect it, ...

That is a serious injustice.

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.

Not according to the rules you provided.

So what is next, stop offering recruiting bonuses to doctors, lawyers, mechanics, because not everyone qualifies for them...

They are being bonused for the value of their work, which is a job-relevant consideration. It is not like being granted more money for your death because of the job-irrelevant marital status.

Is it fair that my garbage man earns more money than i for less risk,...

Your garbage man is an employee of a different organization. The comparison is therefore not applicable here.

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

I didn't place the money value on anyone's life. The forces placed a different money value on some lives compared to others. [EDIT: oops, not the forces, the government/Veterans Affairs.]

[capricorn]

We could stretch the discriminatory aspect of this death benefit in many ways. Here's another example. In the case of a soldier with spouse/children, his/her parents presently get nothing. If parents of a single soldier were to receive the benefit does this not discriminate against that other set of parents? In these two scenarios, parents would be treated differently depending on the marital status of their offspring. Some would see this as discriminatory.

[Leafless]

To put it bluntly, any unmarried individual who thinks of joining Canada's military, must marry in order to qualify and receive the $250k death benefit. If one should feel uncomfortable with this don't join and don't vote in federal elections.

It could be considered a federal qualification similar to 'official bilingualism', where in order to get a certain 60-70k federal position, you more than likely must be able to pass a federal language test even if the majority commercial language of Canada is English. If one should feel uncomfortable with this in order to gain federal employment, don't apply and don't vote in federal elections.

The federal government obviously feels entitled to discriminate even though its own federal entity is dependent on a certain democratic process.

[M.Dancer]

yadda yadda yadda......

Can we get to the REAL inequalities....like why the beer in the men's mess is cheaper than the Officer's mess, and why the port in the officer's mess is better than the men's mess?

[Wilber]

I didn't place the money value on anyone's life. The forces placed a different money value on some lives compared to others. [EDIT: oops, not the forces, the government/Veterans Affairs

The value is being put on the dependants lives, that's the part you guys don't get.

[Figleaf]

I didn't place the money value on anyone's life. The forces placed a different money value on some lives compared to others. [EDIT: oops, not the forces, the government/Veterans Affairs

The value is being put on the dependants lives, that's the part you guys don't get.

I don't 'get' how that justifies treating unmarried soldiers like their lives are worth less and forcing them to subsidize benefits for marrieds.

[Wilber]

I don't 'get' how that justifies treating unmarried soldiers like their lives are worth less and forcing them to subsidize benefits for marrieds.

The dependents get the benefit, whatever it is. It is their lives who are being valued. What is so hard to understand?

[Figleaf]

I don't 'get' how that justifies treating unmarried soldiers like their lives are worth less and forcing them to subsidize benefits for marrieds.

The dependents get the benefit, whatever it is. It is their lives who are being valued. What is so hard to understand?

What is hard to understand is why married members' relatives deserve money that unmarried members relatives' don't.

[weaponeer]

I don't 'get' how that justifies treating unmarried soldiers like their lives are worth less and forcing them to subsidize benefits for marrieds.

The dependents get the benefit, whatever it is. It is their lives who are being valued. What is so hard to understand?

What is hard to understand is why married members' relatives deserve money that unmarried members relatives' don't.

It's not hard for us military folks to understand. In the military, your family, dependents, are ONLY your spouse and children. Your next of kin is your mom, dad, sisters etc....

For example, as a single soldier I can go home and visit mom & dad all expenses paid (actually the price of an airline ticket) once a year. (I can go 20 times a year if I want, but the CF only pays for 1 trip). A married soldier cannot, because he lives with his "family".

At Xmas, single members are often given priority to leave so they can travel home and be with next of kin. Married folks have their families with them, so they are considered to be "home".

A married soldiers next of kin does not get any $$, only the spouse and children.

If a married soldier gets divorced, his ex-spouse is entitled to his pension, where a single soldier has no such fear. It's about choices, if you get married there are plus & minus, same with being single.....

As a single soldier, it does not bother me at all.........

[Renegade]

It's not hard for us military folks to understand. In the military, your family, dependents, are ONLY your spouse and children. Your next of kin is your mom, dad, sisters etc....

For example, as a single soldier I can go home and visit mom & dad all expenses paid (actually the price of an airline ticket) once a year. (I can go 20 times a year if I want, but the CF only pays for 1 trip). A married soldier cannot, because he lives with his "family".

At Xmas, single members are often given priority to leave so they can travel home and be with next of kin. Married folks have their families with them, so they are considered to be "home".

A married soldiers next of kin does not get any $$, only the spouse and children.

If a married soldier gets divorced, his ex-spouse is entitled to his pension, where a single soldier has no such fear. It's about choices, if you get married there are plus & minus, same with being single.....

As a single soldier, it does not bother me at all.........

weaponeer, you show several examples where the military discrimminates between single and married soldiers. Sometimes for one, sometimes for the other. Who determines how far can the discrimmination go and woudl be acceptable?

For example if the DND exempted married soldiers from going on dangerous missions on the basis that they had famlies who depended on them, would you consider that acceptable discrimmination?

[Figleaf]

I don't 'get' how that justifies treating unmarried soldiers like their lives are worth less and forcing them to subsidize benefits for marrieds.

The dependents get the benefit, whatever it is. It is their lives who are being valued. What is so hard to understand?

What is hard to understand is why married members' relatives deserve money that unmarried members relatives' don't.

It's not hard for us military folks to understand. In the military, your family, dependents, are ONLY your spouse and children. Your next of kin is your mom, dad, sisters etc....

For example, as a single soldier I can go home and visit mom & dad all expenses paid (actually the price of an airline ticket) once a year. (I can go 20 times a year if I want, but the CF only pays for 1 trip). A married soldier cannot, because he lives with his "family".

At Xmas, single members are often given priority to leave so they can travel home and be with next of kin. Married folks have their families with them, so they are considered to be "home".

A married soldiers next of kin does not get any $$, only the spouse and children.

If a married soldier gets divorced, his ex-spouse is entitled to his pension, where a single soldier has no such fear. It's about choices, if you get married there are plus & minus, same with being single.....

As a single soldier, it does not bother me at all.........

That's a lot of variations and exceptions based on marital status!

Quite apart from whether such discrimination is legal, it tells me that the military is about 30 years or more behind the times in social understanding and Human Resource management. The Ozzie and Harriet 'family' mold is very much the exception these days. I suspect that using benefit and managemet practices that are stuck in the 70's imposes many hardships on modern military families.

Too bad Mr. Marin moved on too soon.

[Wilber]

I don't 'get' how that justifies treating unmarried soldiers like their lives are worth less and forcing them to subsidize benefits for marrieds.

The dependents get the benefit, whatever it is. It is their lives who are being valued. What is so hard to understand?

What is hard to understand is why married members' relatives deserve money that unmarried members relatives' don't.

Simple, because they aren't dependents

[Keepitsimple]

Here's a "Letter to the Editor" that appeared in this morning's Star:

Unmarried soldiers haven't been forgotten

Re: No death benefit for single soldier June 4

This story about the $250,000 (now $255,000) death benefit available to married soldiers gives only part of the picture. All Canadian Forces members have the Supplementary Death Benefit (two years' salary), which goes to whomever they designate. In addition, members can purchase group life insurance. If Cpl. Matthew Dinning had nominated either parent as a beneficiary, that person would get about $90,000 tax free from the Supplementary Death Benefit, plus the life insurance, if he had enrolled.

Mark Collins, Ottawa

[Renegade]

Here's a "Letter to the Editor" that appeared in this morning's Star:

Unmarried soldiers haven't been forgotten

Re: No death benefit for single soldier June 4

This story about the $250,000 (now $255,000) death benefit available to married soldiers gives only part of the picture. All Canadian Forces members have the Supplementary Death Benefit (two years' salary), which goes to whomever they designate. In addition, members can purchase group life insurance. If Cpl. Matthew Dinning had nominated either parent as a beneficiary, that person would get about $90,000 tax free from the Supplementary Death Benefit, plus the life insurance, if he had enrolled.

Mark Collins, Ottawa

The letter seems to ignore the key issue that there are discrimminatory benefits offered based upon marital status. It is irrelevant that there are other benefits such as Supplementary Death Benefit which are not discrimminatory.