Plan To Eliminate Veterans Compensation
03-23-2023, 09:08 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 359
Plan To Eliminate Veterans Compensation
https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58631
VA plan to the CBO to means test VA Compensation payouts. No more compensation if you earn $170K.
VA plan to the CBO to means test VA Compensation payouts. No more compensation if you earn $170K.
03-24-2023, 03:54 AM
#3
Speed Verified
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,027
Handouts for bums and those with no work ethic. But hey, you served and have health problems, don't care, we're taking it away. I don't see how any politician can say yes to this unless they slip it in on page 1500 of a 3000 pg bill and no one realizes it.
03-24-2023, 04:44 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 359
Originally Posted by Beech Dude
Handouts for bums and those with no work ethic. But hey, you served and have health problems, don't care, we're taking it away. I don't see how any politician can say yes to this unless they slip it in on page 1500 of a 3000 pg bill and no one realizes it.
But, don't worry. They'll give healthcare to undocumented aliens during a pandemic. In case we forget:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMSmoNOZJ9Y
03-24-2023, 06:01 AM
#5
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Position: I fly airplanes
Posts: 71
YGTBFSM! Penalize veterans with lifelong physical and mental ailments due to their selfless service to the country, and who are successful members of society… all while continuing to encourage millions to NOT work or contribute to the common good by handing out free $$$ and incentives to sit on their rear ends at home?! Hard no. Where is the cut in Social Security or Medicare benefits for successful Americans that make more than $170K a year? Sure that would save trillions (and also rhetorical because it is equally as ridiculous an idea).
03-24-2023, 06:08 AM
#6
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Don't know much about how they operate, but I would take this is as CBO doing napkin math not a serious proposal.
Worst case, somebody put them up to it, floating a trial balloon to gauge the backlash.
I always knew that once the desert wars were over they'd come for the big post 9/11 gains in mil compensation. Their problem right now is they have to keep paying the AD for retention and recruiting in the face of the looming Pacific threats.
In recent years I've also heard proposals to means test social security. I assume they'll come for mil retirement next?
Worst case, somebody put them up to it, floating a trial balloon to gauge the backlash.
I always knew that once the desert wars were over they'd come for the big post 9/11 gains in mil compensation. Their problem right now is they have to keep paying the AD for retention and recruiting in the face of the looming Pacific threats.
In recent years I've also heard proposals to means test social security. I assume they'll come for mil retirement next?
03-24-2023, 06:23 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 359
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Don't know much about how they operate, but I would take this is a CBO doing napkin math not a serious proposal.
Worst case, somebody put them up to it, floating a trial balloon to gauge the backlash.
I always knew that once the desert wars were over they'd come for the big post 9/11 gains in mil compensation. Their problem right now is they have to keep paying the AD for retention and recruiting in the face of the looming Pacific threats.
In recent years I've also heard proposals to means test social security. I assume they'll come for mil retirement next?
Worst case, somebody put them up to it, floating a trial balloon to gauge the backlash.
I always knew that once the desert wars were over they'd come for the big post 9/11 gains in mil compensation. Their problem right now is they have to keep paying the AD for retention and recruiting in the face of the looming Pacific threats.
In recent years I've also heard proposals to means test social security. I assume they'll come for mil retirement next?
03-24-2023, 07:05 AM
#8
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Originally Posted by HSCompressor
The retirement system should've been revamped ages ago. How does a Navy Seal, with multiple sandbox deployments, require the same 20 years to earn a retirement check as a Coast Guard Yeoman?
Look at how combat tax exemption works today... what are you going to do, pay people more based on confirmed kills?
Pointy-end folks do get lots of retention bonuses at least. Also, more senior operators tend to do a lot more staff/training duty than front-line assignments (unless maybe they really want to be front-line).
03-24-2023, 07:08 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 297
Not very popular opinion, but I agree with this change. You aren't entitled to disability payments if you can work. The entire point of disability payments is to compensate someone who can't work, or to make up for lost income, or to pay for ongoing medical care. The current system encourages people to make up disabilities so they get a bigger paycheck.
Yes I'm a vet. Yes I receive VA payments.
Yes I'm a vet. Yes I receive VA payments.
03-24-2023, 07:34 AM
#10
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Originally Posted by FlyinCat
Not very popular opinion, but I agree with this change. You aren't entitled to disability payments if you can work. The entire point of disability payments is to compensate someone who can't work, or to make up for lost income, or to pay for ongoing medical care. The current system encourages people to make up disabilities so they get a bigger paycheck.
Yes I'm a vet. Yes I receive VA payments.
Yes I'm a vet. Yes I receive VA payments.
1. Significant disability for those who need it (actually seriously impaired).
2. Compensation for service-connected issues which create nuisance, expense, or degrade QOL.
#2 matters because mil is exposed to more hazardous stuff and situations than civilians, and also cannot usually decline to participate.
Probably the downside with #2 is there's often no way to tell whether the condition was caused or aggravated by service, or if it was something the member would have had regardless. So the tie goes to the runner in that case.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
