Unmarried soldiers?

[Army Guy]

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.

There is already such a plan it is called SSIP, it's military /government sponsored life insurance policy, and like any insurance policy it's pay out depends on what you pay into it. All members are reminded before heading out on a mission to update thier policy ie pay more into it so the payout is greater, providing more for your loved ones if something does happen.

At the max whom ever is on your will and last testiment will get approx 250k depending on injuries or if death occurs...

Although it is not convertiable when you leave , members can opt to continue the program after retirement. it is available to whom ever has served, past or present.

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

No, it does not. what it creates is piece of mind for the member that has family responsabilities, that his family will be looked after when he can not be there to do that...remember you have to die to qualify.

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

This benifit comes from Veterns affairs, a separate dept, with it's own funding, designed to specifically look after our vet's, not our current employed soldiers, not to fund the military in any way. Any surplus in thier funding goes back into the government coffers, not DND's and becomes part of the countries surplus at the end of the year...but lets take a look at what they have paid out to date, in our worse year with the most deaths they may have payed out 5 mil, which works out to a pay raise of almost 90 dollars per soldier, could purchase 3/4 of a Leo tank, basically a drop in the bucket. and we are still left with the orginal problem.

What it does provide with these funds is another benifit package for a soldiers family, orginally designed and offered because there was military families that were stuck, the members SSIP coverage was used to pay off mortage and other family debts, most military spouses are forced into taking jobs that do not have alot of benifits, or coverages, because they are forced to move regularily, child care is not always available , so when the military member deploys the spouses end up at home looking after the kids...climbing up the corporate ladder is just not an opition. "most families not all". So when the military member is killed and they have to defend for themselfs , is an added stressor to an already stressful event. This VA benifit helps with all that. It solved one issue that was a problem, it was not intended to make one life more valued over another.

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

Could not be said the same, as having a grieving widow, placed onto the streets with her children to fend for themselfs. collecting other social benifits..this benifit would go along way into making a new furture for them would it not.

Not according to the rules you provided.

The system is not inflexable, and is changing daily, and like i said with a matter as serious as this i'm sure a MP would atleast hear it. And with national coverage of such matters i don't think it would take long to have it amended.

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.

And if i think my job is as relevant as say a mechanics do i have a case to appeal, or is it that i do not qualify for those bonus because they have decided that it's not that the job is more relevant, but just short staffed. and this was away to attract more recruits...is that fair that my job or speciality is left out just because they have enough of them already...again one must qualify to collect , just like the VA bonus to qualify you must have dependants..

Perhaps it is just people with military experiance whom see this benift as a plus, as the military and civilian life are full of examples of having to qualify for certain bonuses and benifits. I'm certain if one picks it apart long enough there is some unfairness to all these benifits, laws, and governmental policies.

[kimmy]

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

It's obviously a gerrymander-like attempt to bribe married voters!

-k

[Army Guy]

You might be on to something here kimmy...perhaps a deeper plot is waiting in the wings...who else is getting bribes...and who is next on thier list, ...stayed tune as our resident conspiracy theorists examine all the possiablities, and they answer the questions that everyone really wants answered " Are aliens really in control of our government"

LOL

[M.Dancer]

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

It's obviously a gerrymander-like attempt to bribe married voters!

-k

You crack me up.....is that you btw, the picture in your profile leaving the Truther's office?

[rogue state]

benifit... benift ...benifit.. benifits

it is correct spelled, "benifit" ?

Mahmoud Ghalehnoii, the intenational english student

[Figleaf]

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".

The problem with your argument, is that it depends on specific factual assumptions to make it work. Your example situation is one case. What about comparing these two cases:

Soldier A, no kids, married six months ago, wife about to file for divorce, already blew him off to party with drug dealers before he went to Afghan.

Soldier B, no kids, sole support to single parent, 68yrs.

[Figleaf]

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

It's obviously a gerrymander-like attempt to bribe married voters!

-k

Now now, kimmy, keep it in your pants.

[capricorn]

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".

The problem with your argument, is that it depends on specific factual assumptions to make it work. Your example situation is one case. What about comparing these two cases:

Soldier A, no kids, married six months ago, wife about to file for divorce, already blew him off to party with drug dealers before he went to Afghan.

Soldier B, no kids, sole support to single parent, 68yrs.

Figleaf, you seem really concerned about an estranged spouse receiving this benefit. I think this is a valid concern all around. Because of my personal experience, I don't share your level of concern.

I have one son who served 3 years in the military and I have another son who has now been with the military for 10 years. I am very close to them and they tell me everything. Therefore, I have a fair understanding of how the military treats it's soldiers. The military keeps a very tight reign on them. Any and all information of a personal nature is gathered and kept on the soldiers' files. This includes details on the state of their personal relationships. If a soldier were to become separated or enter into divorce proceedings, you can be sure this would quickly be documented. So, when Veteran Affairs is required to determine eligibilty for the death benefit, VA would be privy to this information and would make use of it. But no system is perfect. Someone, sometime may receive the benefit who should not qualify. Yet, I think the process that is presently in place will keep such cases to a bare minimum.

[kimmy]

Now now, kimmy, keep it in your pants.

"Unmarried soldiers? Your lives are worth less! Why is Steve's government so contemptuous of unmarried soldiers?"

The shrillness is almost hiti-like. All you need to do is misspell "hypocrisy" a few times, and it'll be a great impersonation.

You crack me up.....is that you btw, the picture in your profile leaving the Truther's office?

Yes, that is me. White like sour cream.

-k

[Blu-Truth]

I believe Mr. Dinning is in no way using this as a political smear but obviously he is hurting greatly out of the loss of his son. He has viewed this policy as a valuation put on the lives of fallen soldiers (his son) instead of what it really is, which is a death benefit for the surviving dependants. We could never put a price on the value of a life nor should we, but we must make sure those who were dependant upon these soldiers are at least helped financially.

It's very excusable for Mr. Dining to make this point even though I don't think it's correct, but others who should know better, should be ashamed for using this for political points despite knowing full well the facts and purpose behind this compensation. If we want to have a discussion about the policy and who is regarded as dependants ect. then fine, but refrain from the disgusting accusations that the government or military values some lives over others.

[Army Guy]

rogue state:

benifit... benift ...benifit.. benifits

it is correct spelled, "benifit" ?

Mahmoud Ghalehnoii, the intenational english student

I did'nt know i was being graded on spelling, i apologize, if it has caused you pain or grief professor... but before you criticize my posts, you should atleast have a look at your own, and the correct spelling is actually "benefit", "correctly", and "international"

Army guy, international terrorist relocation specialist

[Figleaf]

Now now, kimmy, keep it in your pants.

"Unmarried soldiers? Your lives are worth less! Why is Steve's government so contemptuous of unmarried soldiers?"

The shrillness is almost hiti-like. All you need to do is misspell "hypocrisy" a few times, and it'll be a great impersonation.

The shrillness is something you brought.

My comment had no exclamation point, and Everything before 'why' was a heading, not part of the longish whinge you would make it out to be.

Yes, that is me. White like sour cream.

Nice, ah ... frontage though.

[rogue state]

I did'nt know i was being graded on spelling, i apologize, if it has caused you pain or grief professor... but before you criticize my posts, you should atleast have a look at your own, and the correct spelling is actually "benefit", "correctly", and "international"

Army guy, international terrorist relocation specialist

i mistyped the same word once, but "benifit" was written about 8 times.

so, you fearmonger, create animosity among countries, and label people as "terrorists", with the purpose of spending public's money on yourself ?

nice job

[Army Guy]

rogue state:

i mistyped the same word once, but "benifit" was written about 8 times.

Like i said before if i caused you any pain or grief with my spelling, i apologize. But it's not just my spelling that pisses you about about me, is it. because for an international student yours sucks as bad as mine.

so, you fearmonger, create animosity among countries, and label people as "terrorists", with the purpose of spending public's money on yourself ?

WOW...last week i was just a poor soldier with no education, this week i'm a fear monger, that creates animosity across the globe. who's goal is to spend taxpayers monies on myself...i can't tell, i'm i getting better or worse ? No wonder i can't get that song out of my head BAD BOYS , BAD BOYS what you going to do, when they come for you.

I can see that trip down to the recruiting office went well, those airforce guys too rough on you muffin man...or is it you still have those problems with authority figures, like cops and soldiers dating back from your higher education days, when it was all the fad to protest .... But hey your a busy guy with lots of things to do...waiting for phone calls from the UI office ,telling you now have that CEO postion at IBM....then there's the trip to the mailbox for that UI check...I wonder who for pays that....anyways back on topic.

Maybe , just maybe you can back up your claim with perhaps some viable links or sources on just how Canadian soldiers are spreading fear across the globe, and putting tax dollars in our own pockets...

Of course i could see your piont if you a taliban member or a terrorist operating out Afgan, maybe thats it...your not from Afganistan are you, Nah....

[ScottSA]

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.

And what excellent discrimination it is.

[Renegade]

And what excellent discrimination it is.

"excellent discrimmination" is disrimmination that is in our favour, "loathsome discrimmination" is when it is not.

[ScottSA]

And what excellent discrimination it is.

"excellent discrimmination" is disrimmination that is in our favour, "loathsome discrimmination" is when it is not.

This discrimination simply makes sense.

[Renegade]

This discrimination simply makes sense.

Who determines "good" discrimminaiton vs "bad" discrimmination? IMV, ALL discrimmination is bad, because it sets a precedent for subjetive determination of what is allowalble discrimmination or not.

[Rue]

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.

Ah I get it!!! SInce gays in your opinion can't get married, they could then under your definition all join the Army! I got it! There is a place for them in Canadian society after all!