In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Military Death Benefits
Night Stalker
Member Posts: 11,967
I am curious as to what you all think about this. I personally believe the money is better spent elsewhere, but that's just my opinion.
Washington Times
January 31, 2005
Pg. 16
Military Death Benefits
By Dan K. Thomasson
If there is any common ground for agreement left between the warring political parties in Congress it should be in protecting the welfare of the loved ones of American soldiers who die in combat. At the moment, the nation's gratitude for those who have given their utmost is a paltry $12,420 - in many cases hardly enough to pay for funeral expenses.
A proposal would increase that 1908-established gratuity to $100,000; hardly excessive when one considers what this government paid survivors of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack. That compensation averages well over $1 million for civilian families with relatives of policemen and firemen killed in the tragedy receiving more than twice as much. The September 11 victim compensation fund was established to protect the commercial airline industry from lawsuits, not a great idea given the precedent it set.
Since established under Theodore Roosevelt in 1908 as a bonus for Civil War veterans, the gratuity, originally a few hundred dollars, has been increased several times but not by much. It went to $1,800 to $3,000 (depending on rank) in 1956. During the Gulf war, it was raised to $6,000 with half of it taxable. In 2003, it was increased to $12,000 and was made tax-free and tied to military pay raises. On Jan. 1, the 3? percent pay increase for all military personnel boosted it $420.
Currently, the Army provides both an opportunity for its troops to buy at a low rate a $250,000 term life insurance policy and a death benefit of $6,900. Plus there is a limited monthly stipend for wives. There have been complaints that paperwork has slowed the insurance payments, and some wives and children have been financially as well as emotionally devastated.
Another plan circulating in Congress would have the Army pay the insurance premium. Some military personnel have reduced the amount of the policy to save money or, in some case, have refused it altogether.
The proposal also would increase the insurance to $300,000, and it estimates raising both the death gratuity and the insurance ceiling would cost about $420 million in the first year. While that may seem substantial, it is little enough to assure those willing to sacrifice their lives that their survivors have extended security.
Few issues have more emotional appeal and practical application. If the nation continues relying on an all-volunteer military supplemented by reserve and National Guard units, few other proposals could do as much to keep recruitments high as convincing potential soldiers in time of war that, if anything happens to them, their loved ones will be provided for.
Aside from the practical aspect, it is simply the right and the moral thing to do. Past generations have willingly sacrificed their lives in the national interest without the kinds of protection they deserved. Few have made an issue of it. The time has come to provide the guardians of our welfare and freedom with more than just a posthumous medal for bravery.
In fact, the insurance policy should be extended to those permanently maimed in combat. As a former secretary of Veterans Affairs noted recently, those who care for soldiers who have lost a limb or face long-term disability often experience more serious emotional and financial costs than the families of those who have died. But extending the insurance to cover injuries probably is some time off.
Several private foundations also provide compensation for families of those who die in service. The Intrepid Fund, supported by private donations, distributes several thousand dollars for children and wives and husbands of military dead. But the government should bear most of the burden.
Republicans pushing the increase clearly believe it will help offset Democrat charges the Bush administration has neglected servicemen and women, failing to provide many of them, particularly reservists and Guardsmen, adequate armor and other equipment. Whatever the reasons for this push, it is an opportunity for both parties to put aside some of the animosity already so obvious in the new Congress and do something for the most deserving among us. Chances seem fairly good few lawmakers will want to vote against it, especially those who have been so critical of Iraq and current Pentagon policies.
Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.
NSDQ!
"The Lord knows the way I take, and when He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold" JOB 23:10
Washington Times
January 31, 2005
Pg. 16
Military Death Benefits
By Dan K. Thomasson
If there is any common ground for agreement left between the warring political parties in Congress it should be in protecting the welfare of the loved ones of American soldiers who die in combat. At the moment, the nation's gratitude for those who have given their utmost is a paltry $12,420 - in many cases hardly enough to pay for funeral expenses.
A proposal would increase that 1908-established gratuity to $100,000; hardly excessive when one considers what this government paid survivors of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack. That compensation averages well over $1 million for civilian families with relatives of policemen and firemen killed in the tragedy receiving more than twice as much. The September 11 victim compensation fund was established to protect the commercial airline industry from lawsuits, not a great idea given the precedent it set.
Since established under Theodore Roosevelt in 1908 as a bonus for Civil War veterans, the gratuity, originally a few hundred dollars, has been increased several times but not by much. It went to $1,800 to $3,000 (depending on rank) in 1956. During the Gulf war, it was raised to $6,000 with half of it taxable. In 2003, it was increased to $12,000 and was made tax-free and tied to military pay raises. On Jan. 1, the 3? percent pay increase for all military personnel boosted it $420.
Currently, the Army provides both an opportunity for its troops to buy at a low rate a $250,000 term life insurance policy and a death benefit of $6,900. Plus there is a limited monthly stipend for wives. There have been complaints that paperwork has slowed the insurance payments, and some wives and children have been financially as well as emotionally devastated.
Another plan circulating in Congress would have the Army pay the insurance premium. Some military personnel have reduced the amount of the policy to save money or, in some case, have refused it altogether.
The proposal also would increase the insurance to $300,000, and it estimates raising both the death gratuity and the insurance ceiling would cost about $420 million in the first year. While that may seem substantial, it is little enough to assure those willing to sacrifice their lives that their survivors have extended security.
Few issues have more emotional appeal and practical application. If the nation continues relying on an all-volunteer military supplemented by reserve and National Guard units, few other proposals could do as much to keep recruitments high as convincing potential soldiers in time of war that, if anything happens to them, their loved ones will be provided for.
Aside from the practical aspect, it is simply the right and the moral thing to do. Past generations have willingly sacrificed their lives in the national interest without the kinds of protection they deserved. Few have made an issue of it. The time has come to provide the guardians of our welfare and freedom with more than just a posthumous medal for bravery.
In fact, the insurance policy should be extended to those permanently maimed in combat. As a former secretary of Veterans Affairs noted recently, those who care for soldiers who have lost a limb or face long-term disability often experience more serious emotional and financial costs than the families of those who have died. But extending the insurance to cover injuries probably is some time off.
Several private foundations also provide compensation for families of those who die in service. The Intrepid Fund, supported by private donations, distributes several thousand dollars for children and wives and husbands of military dead. But the government should bear most of the burden.
Republicans pushing the increase clearly believe it will help offset Democrat charges the Bush administration has neglected servicemen and women, failing to provide many of them, particularly reservists and Guardsmen, adequate armor and other equipment. Whatever the reasons for this push, it is an opportunity for both parties to put aside some of the animosity already so obvious in the new Congress and do something for the most deserving among us. Chances seem fairly good few lawmakers will want to vote against it, especially those who have been so critical of Iraq and current Pentagon policies.
Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.
NSDQ!
"The Lord knows the way I take, and when He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold" JOB 23:10
Comments
I read in the new VFW Mag that Dell has a fund to give spouses of deceased members free money.
I think some young Army Officer (NS) should start a 'Disability Insurance Program' for all members of the military to pay a monthly fee and if they should get disabled while in service they get some lump sum of money.
God knows the disability from the VA ain't enough to help those coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Start your own business Night Stalker. You would be surprised how many people you could find to give you $5 a month. The lump sum ain't gotta be grand.....but atleast something.[xx(]
With regard to the $5 monthly investment into a disability fund, I don't know about that one. Who would decide what type and percentage of disability a soldier shuld receive? Unfortunately, it looks like a breeding ground for problems and corruption to me.
NSDQ!
"The Lord knows the way I take, and when He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold" JOB 23:10
If you charged $5 a month and 250,000 people pitched in you would have $1,250,000 every month.
Unfortuneatly if you paid out $2500 you could only pay 500 people.
We have many, many, many more than that coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq with military disability's requiring Medical Evaluations and discharges.
I think some of them are just being greedy.
If it's the IRS that's screwing them out of money, cut the law that says the it get taxed. If the insurance company is just slow to pay off, I'm sure that your Congressman/Representative or local newspaper, maybe even 60 Minutes would be very interested in it!
It is unacceptable to put the families of deceased Service Members through anything more than what has already happened.
Sounds like a liberal is trying to buy his way out of something. "Hey we have a problem, let's throw some money at it."
Phil
I learn something new everyday.
Molon Labe
today. I know back in ww2 we could get $10,000 insurance for $6.40
per month. No idea of any "death benifits". I must agree the millions
of dollars the families of 9-11 victims dont seem quite fair.
R/
Dave
People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.
-- A. J. Liebling
Depending on your rank, how long you've been in the military (rank+TIS=income/standard-of-living) and if you've been married, a sound financial advisor would advise WAY MORE than $250K coverage.
ww 2 paying $6.40 per mo. for only $$10,000. $6.40 was about 10 percent
of our monthly pay. Any damn fool soldier not taking this deal for insurance is down right stupid. Tax or no tax. At a Privates pay (52.00 per month, insurance $6.40 laundry, soldiers fund, allotment home ETC ) didnt leave much. However later, we got "overseas pay", believe it was 10 percent, and CIB pay of $10.00. Guess we were rich,
with no place to spend it. But, would like to see the tax on the insurance benifit stopped for the Military completely. Just dont seem fair to tax a insurance policy benificiary. Kinda wonder if all those 9-11 victims families have this insurance and benifits tax?
R/
Dave
People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.
-- A. J. Liebling
$250K is about 9 years pay for an E-6. That's not enough?
Dave , You're right! The old soldiers had it way tougher than I did. My dad used to tell me "Imade $19 a day, once a month!"
Phil
I learn something new everyday.
Yes, I am a Vet AND a Combat Vet. Be realistic.
Phil
I learn something new everyday.
And this has come to pass,not to stay.
NOW, Who doesn't get it?
Phil
I learn something new everyday.
Phil
I learn something new everyday.
And this has come to pass,not to stay.
They CAN get life insurance cheap.
They family of a dead servicemember get's $12,400 for a funeral. That's plenty. There was an article in this month's American Legion mag on how to have a funeral on the cheap. You don't need to be burried in some $10,000 casket, that's just plain silly. The funeral business has pocketed big money as there is no competition in the business and I for one don't want to support them.
Burry me in a pine box draped with a flag and let the worms feast.
Today's military brats are spoiled. Enlistment bonuses....re-enlistment bonuses....while us older NCO's get crap and see some E-3 coming in (with free rank) making more money than us. That ain't right. Then these kids get the option to live off-base/post and get BAH for rent off the bat. When I came in you had to have E-5 to live off base/post...and I lived in the dorms/barracks for over 7 years.
Quit spoiling and wanting to do more for the troops....you are weakening them and future NCO's. Patriotic feelings for them are fine and all but we ARE getting close to $8 Trillion in the hole.
the voices in my head don't scare me. it's only when they stop that i get a little nervous.
The $12,420 is only there to cover funeral and related expenses.
You can say I'm cold hearted if you want but, I stand by my statements.
I paid for extra insurance while I was active so my family would be taken care of.
The other part of the bill is to offer a FREE upgrade (to $400k)to anyone killed in a designated combat zone. That makes way more sense to me.
Phil
I learn something new everyday.
Fighting and dying are possibilities that must be accounted for when one joins the military. "But if I die, who will take care of my family?"
If you're lucky, some other man will marry your wife and provide for her, but unless I'm that man, I don't mean to sound like a heartless b@$#@rd, I don't want to be the one paying.
We have an all-volunteer military. No one forced these folks to join... and while putting one's life on the line for one's country is a laudible pursuit, each and every one of us has to ask, "Which comes first? My career or my family?"
And whatever choice you make, you stick with it and don't expect to come suckling at the public teat when things don't go as hoped.
Sorry, but that's how I feel. The money would be better spent on training, more training, and equipment.
Phil
I learn something new everyday.